Yes, we share identical philosophies. I have called myself a cheerleader in the management roles I have assumed, because it was my great joy to help people attain their potential and reap the rewards of self-respect and confidence. Like you, I believe gender is another of those issues to leave at home, which has made me quite unpopular with feminists but it is not a strong position to lean on gender, sexual orientation or other of a number of issues that are just social issues and do not level the playing field in terms of real ability and competence. One of my instructors (in management) once said, “Catch them doing something good.” By that he meant the praise to which you allude - as averse to the constant searching for errors, which we all make and which only breeds a negative atmosphere in which real accomplishment is curtailed and inhibited. After a period of adjustment to the difference in my style, my employees always loved working for me. But inevitably, someone with green eyes would grow jealous, seeing this as a power base (because of her insecurities - and it was almost always a she), and then the treachery began and the team fell apart. Only after the damage was done were the participants able to see what had happened and express regret. By then, I was long gone. I simply will not stay in such an environment or subject myself to such ugly, hurtful, time-wasting actions. Yeah, I’ve been told I’m one in a million. Every time I take another of those many tests (like Meyers-Briggs and the like) I always end up in a teeny percentage bracket. Oh well… It ain’t easy to walk in these shoes, but it is surely very rewarding personally. And I’d say it takes one to know one. As for the site, I find it mostly boring and trite. You have been a delicious exception as has this question, though you have taken it somewhere other than the original intent I believe. What have I learned from working with women? NOT to work with women if I can avoid it. Sad. Thank you for your wonderful contributions to this site. And I’m very glad to have “met” you. ~Carol

Thank you, Joan. Most especially for opening up this subject with your honesty. I can’t say how much I would enjoy working with a woman such as you. On those few occasions when that has been my opportunity, it was delightful and extremely fulfilling because we could accomplish at such a high level. When women become secure in their knowledge of their own worth - intellectually, cooperatively, in areas other than domestic or sexual - we will be able to utilize a power so deep and colored with collective wisdom that real change can be effected - for ourselves and for the world. We have to move past our limbic brains, just as we ask that men do. It’s as basic as that and lies within the provenance of our pre-frontal cortices. And yes, it is truly refreshing to discuss something so relevant and honest on this forum - and not the latest gossip about would-be celebrities (who cares?).

I vote with you, Joan. I have found women in general to be far too personal and chatty in the work environment, far less likely to get work accomplished efficiently and really snarky and political in the ways that only women can be with each other. As I was both attractive and highly intelligent, I engendered resentment and “intimidation” for no reason whatsoever than physical appearance and intellect because I am a very kind, polite and fair person, as any of my employees would attest. Because I am professional, I got professional treatment from men, kept a sense of humor and never invited sexism by my manner of dress, my language or my actions. I think most women use the workplace for more social reasons, organize themselves differently and I vote for the big boys every time if there is work to be done with a minimum of fuss and ado. I also condemn all women who appear at work with a certain attitude that expresses itself in inappropriate clothing and/or language, then cry “sexism” when men rise to the bait. Such issues as sex, sexual orientation, political affiliations, religious persuasions and the like have no place in the public forum of the work world and only invite the kinds of difficulties about which we hear much whining, loss of time and work performance. I suggest we all keep our private lives PRIVATE!

PLEASE!!! Could we STOP talking about Sarah Palin and her sad family. Only a little investigation will reveal that there is much more to this story than we’ve known and it isn’t pretty. It will fade into the background if we let it. It is terribly unimportant in the face of the really life-changing drama we have here and abroad. This woman and her family are almost entirely created by the media so let’s just move on. They’re Alaskans, for pete’s sake!! This is the way life is lived in Alaska to a very great extent. It bears no relation to the rest of the states and we do well to concentrate on the majority and real issues and not some aberrant state in which civility and accepted norms of behavior have yet to become entrenched - for good or for bad. This story really has no place on this forum or any news forum (perhaps YouTube or TMZ) and is why I have found myself increasingly bored with the forum (and more inclined to engage with real issues that are being addressed by women such as at http://thewip.net/, women’s international perspectives) that is preoccupied with gossip, innuendo, and mundane issues that are terribly small and subjective in a world that is in unprecedented crisis.

Frankly, I am offended at Christmas and holiday wishes so early in the season and particularly before we have even celebrated Thanksgiving. I have long rued the fact that we set aside a national day on which to give thanks - how laudable! - and being the crass people we have become, we use it to stuff ourselves to excess and watch football. I’d like to know the statistics (or maybe I wouldn’t) of those people who give any thought whatsoever to real thankfulness, counting their blessings. Even under the extreme financial duress in which we find our country today, we still have much for which to be thankful and participating in that extraordinary exercise might actually restore something of substance to the following holiday as well, and I agree with Liz regarding the greeting. Lest I inveigh against political correctness and all that has been lost through an exercise that does not change thought, just speech, I will stop my fingers.

Of course they are all ambitious! I never said they weren’t. It is just more obvious with those who have such blatant lack of qualifications. And I will allow that some people may have both ambition and sincere motive, generous soul that I am. I don’t even think ambition is a bad thing - only overreaching. Truth is, I am sick to death of Sarah Palin and don’t plan to visit this site until the subject changes. There are MUCH more important issues to address - and the election is over! I’m busy elsewhere with others who hope to at least contribute in a larger, international sense, regardless of personalities and ‘way above partisan politics. I have no time for trivia. “Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.” ~Eleanor Roosevelt

Yes, Susan, I celebrate Sarah’s role in Alaska. Republicans, Democrats, conservative, liberal - these are just meaningless labels to me. Until we can engage at a level that is inclusive, pluralistic and diverse, we cannot have a whole body. Complementarity is the concept, not divisiveness. Why is it that when we name a person, many peoples’ first instinct is to associate them with a party instead of looking at the body of their work or the positions they enunciate? At their abilities, both strengths and weaknesses? At how well they bridge gaps and work with others? We simply must drop these artificial differences and respect each other for our abilities, each suited to her/his task and with differences that result in lively discussion and informed decisions that are once and forever non-partisan. As for these women all being liberals: first, I chose names off the top of my head that are high profile and international and second, I believe no one who knows their history would accuse Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi or Gold Meir of being “liberal.” Good grief! We simply must rise above these ridiculous, meaningless, harmful labels which, if we were asked to define them, would be impossible to define in a communally agreed way. I could point out specific examples but I feel that would do no service to the conversation. I am not trying to prove a point - this is not gang warfare or primal clan allegiance - but to bring together all parties based on ability, vision and voice to create a healthy vibrant whole. Good ideas are not restricted to one gender, one party, one country, one faction. We can and should agree to disagree and find compromise that is very often so much better than the original posit. I quote Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. I don’t know where political party fits in, but it’s not at the level of greatness, I am sure.

Thank you, Wine Warrior. I believe ducking behind “sexism” as an excuse for lack of credibility or ability is a really cheap shot. If I say the sky is blue, that is not a judgment, a theory, an ideology, a posit, an hypothesis - it is an accepted fact. Kinda what some people used to call “straight talk” before ambition and corruption set in. I don’t think we need to be afraid to tell it like it is so long as we are willing to accept honest criticism of ourselves. Let us not forget that men do similar things to men as well. In fact, people everywhere sort into classes, groups, similarities, what have you. There is often more than a grain of truth to the names, labels and generalisms we apply to each other in these circumstances. I think we do not have a uniform definition of “sexism” and if it means that all women are above criticism - especially by the men with whom they wish to compete or with whom they serve - then we have surely lost something truly significant - personally, professional and publicly. I admire Hilary Clinton (didn’t want her for president but applaud her as senator) and was appalled by Sarah Palin. Sexism - or informed discrimination of the type essential to good choices? An additional point is that any person, of either gender, who aspires to a public position must accept that at least part of that price is commentary on and investigation of their every utterance, their history, their clothing, their spouses, on and on. Just ask any movie star. If you can’t handle that, stay in Alaska (or your own personal paradise/purgatory). I say let’s just let her fade into the glaciers, lick her wounds and do with the experience what she is capable of doing - no more publicity please! (I haven’t heard a single word from Michele Obama decrying commentary on her wardrobe, style, utterances - and some of them have been really cruel. She may not be running for office, but tacitly she is and First Lady is an even more prominent position than VP.)

Yeah. Bitch. And I believe it defines the subject very well, given your parameters - especially if it includes weakening anyone of either sex.

What do we say about a good-looking man? “Movie star quality,” or words to that affect. It doesn’t go unnoticed. Mitt Romney was one who was thus described. And when a good-looking man uses that gift to schmooze women, we note that too (I maintain that really attractive people grow up in another reality from those of us who are plain or common, which is not their fault, of course, but it skews their perceptions and reactions). The truth is that Sarah Palin had neither the intellect, experience or sophistication for the role she was asked to fill. And I agree emphatically that it was terribly sexist of John McCain to ask her to do it. In the end, Sarah Palin is hardly a player in this scenario. The fault is all McCain’s. If I, as an employer or HR director, hire a person based on superficial reasons (perhaps I am influenced by their attractiveness or personality) without checking their abilities, I am responsible when they fail more surely than they are. And I have done them a great injustice by exposing their weaknesses in a setting for which they might not have known they were unqualified (though one could argue that they must know!) therefore bringing shame and negativity into their lives. I’ve seen it done hundreds of time in the corporate world and so has everyone else. Do we then blame the victim, as it were? I do not mean to absolve her of all responsibility. She really did have insufferable moments. But I believe she was trying to do what she had been asked to do with nothing by way of background to give her a foundation from which to operate or to understand her inabilities. She is in no way even a mainstream American woman, for pete’s sake! Did she get a bit carried away with the unfamiliar and exciting world into which she was thrust? I think that is quite clear. But understandable as well. This is a small-town girl from the backwaters of the world thrust on an international stage with no preparation and, quite frankly, no ability for the task, I don’t care what a “quick study” she is. We’ve all quick studied. How long do we remember it? How much did it change us or our world view in a permanent way? I’d like to feel sorry for her but I find I feel sorrier for Alaska, truth be told. And for her family. As women we tried to like her, understand her and support her. She just did not have the gravitas. And my prediction is that she never will, nor will she understand how and why she failed. How could she? Can you really imagine her in a serious situation with the likes of Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Hilary Clinton, Indira Gandhi, Condoleeza Rice, Madeline Albright, Golda Meir - just to name a few high profile, very intelligent and successful women? (And how about Carly Fiorina who was disappeared because she stated the truth about the executive experience of both John McCain and Sarah Palin?) Because these women are true ladies as well as being women of high accomplishment, I am sure they would indulge her naivete and mindless conversation, but nothing of substance could be addressed, though she would doubtless interject her poorly informed opinion at every opportunity. Perhaps this gives a perspective that might be considered by men who would presume to push a woman, any woman, into the spotlight in an attempt to give lip service to “feminism.” Not all women are equal and neither are all men. Let us each live according to our abilities and not overreach. Especially when it involves the lives and futures of others. Finally, let us recognize that all roles are important to a functioning society, and some fill those roles better than others. Do we need really great senators? Yes!! Thank you, Hilary. Do we need all the women whose names we’ll never learn to do the important leadership tasks they bring to the table? Yes!! We bring our female perspectives, sensibilities and intelligence to tasks of every sort and in these acts, small and large, do we shift the balance and best serve the larger interests of our communities, governments and countries. And though we would love to see a woman in the highest executive position our country can offer, we do not thrust anyone who is unprepared and incompetent, through no fault of their own, into that position when there are so many other significant roles to fill, if more low profile. Now that is true feminism and equality in my book!

My god! When men bring their masculinity and sexuality to the workplace, women scream “sexism,” or “harassment.” (In my role in management, I have often decried the women who come to work in clothing that is clearly inappropriate, act in ways that are clearly provocative, then wail when they get a response based on invitation. This is a very unethical double standard and not worthy of serious employment.) I don’t think the public place and the equality women seek is served by open display of private matters, be they gender, religion, income, sexuality (in all its permutations) or any number of other matters that are not relevant to the task and only serve to sort people by differences. Our sense of personal dignity transcends all these other issues and is felt powerfully, without words, symbols or attire. Personally, I thought Hilary Clinton was exemplary in this sense. I do however encourage more than a nod to our children, whether we be fathers or mothers. The emphasis on the quality of the next generation can hardly be overdone and they should not be sacrificed in the name of anything. Nor should they be used in the public forum as collateral to garner sympathy, votes or stature.

I’m celebrating, but it is a very sober celebration. I have never been particularly “patriotic” in the sense that I have felt myself to be more a citizen of the world than any one country. But today I am very proud to be an American, and for the message we have just sent the countries and their citizenry around the globe. However the stupendous destruction of the last eight years is so sobering, it will take so much will and effort to fix it, that my celebration, my tears, my joy that I have lived to see this wonderful event in our history, is tempered by the work that lies ahead, work this is not just President Obama’s, but which we share in the spirit of the real democracy I hope to be a part of for the first time in my life. All our deepest hopes, dreams and aspirations as a nation rest on the shoulders of this man, who has inspired the best in those of us who believe in him (and it has been a very long time since I felt anything but cynical about the political process). For the rest - that is the old politics, the politics of division, exclusion, fear, greed. I take very seriously the necessity for creating an atmosphere of political discourse and execution that will be so compelling that even the naysayers will want to be a part. I am quite sure I am not alone and that warms the cockles of my heart, which was damn near dead after the bludgeoning of the last eight years (and I hasten to add that this is not because of political party, but of political ambition and overreaching that was so frightening as to put us all into something of a deep shock and paralysis). And I too am quite thankful for John McCain’s gracious speech for it is his responsibility is to assist in the unification of our fractured culture. It is time for healing. Yes, I celebrate the joy of hope.

The woman can’t open her mouth without revealing her ignorance, irrelevance and ambition. I’m offended with her constant would-be identification with “hard working, soccer mom, Joe six-pack, middle class” people. Only the slightest observation and investigation reveals that she has placed herself well above that genre, the mark of a real politician. She is beautiful, smart in a sort of way I find quite unattractive, and at ease in the public address system (not forum, where she fares poorly and cries “unfair” and “sexist” while lying and hitting others below the belt in ways that curl my toenails). But contrary to much other opinion, I do not expect to see her star rise above its current arc. She just doesn’t have enough substance and there are many other women who are so much more qualified and capable - and less self-serving, which ought to be the basic requirement for “public service.” She thrust her family into the spotlight when she accepted this nomination and it is blatantly disingenuous to expect that she and her family would be treated differently from any other public official and family. Clearly, she put ambition before family. What is more offensive to me is her utter lack of humility in assessing her own strengths and weaknesses, her lack of experience, education and savoir faire. A pushy woman is a pushy woman and it has nothing to do with feminism, so let’s lay that one to rest. She can play the good ol’ boys game like a man, but she can’t beat them as a woman, and that is the crux of the issue - both for her and for those of us who want to bring the real female voice and sensibility to the public place.

Personally, I feel sorry for Cindy McCain. It is obvious that she married beneath her but was bedazzled by the war hero - with whom, yes, she was having a dalliance while he was still married. But in the end he abandoned her just as he did his first wife because (and believe me, I have done my research from reputable sources) he always puts himself first and is crazy with ambition so he can be on a par with his father and grandfather. “Country first” my eyeball! Those are not the facts. And read “rebel” for “maverick.” What a con job! The McCain body language at the Republican convention made me cry. He could barely bring himself to touch her and never gave her eye contact, just walked away from her to promote himself. By contrast, he is practically all over Sarah Palin. I can’t help thinking she hopes he loses so she doesn’t have to feign a marriage that exists in name only. They haven’t really lived together for years and he emotionally abandoned her so long ago. Also, she has business interests and an agenda of her own, which includes the only parent who is really there for their children. If she appears cold, I think you may guess some reasons why. She has been terribly hurt. But she doesn’t need him! She is the one with the money and she is a very successful woman without him, the aging boat anchor. My private hope is that she divorces him when this mess is over to clear her own good name. The thought of her having to preside in the White House for four years (if his health lasts that long) as if everything is okay is just too painful to contemplate. She is just too good to be used in that way. I’ve probably said ‘way too much, but somebody needs to say it - as good a reason as any not to vote for McCain. Be kind to Cindy and let her go back to the life she established for herself when her husband was done with her. As for the drugs incident, regrettable yes. But who among us has not resorted to drugs, alcohol, binge shopping, overeating or any other excuse for dulling the pain when we were so emotionally hurt? C’mon, women. Recognize her as one of our own, no matter the differences in our political philosophies. Fair is fair.