wtf are work thinking?

[LadyRainicorn]

I work for a financial services firm. It's usually run by a group of old white men but the current CEO elect (or whatever the title for the incoming leader the UK leadership board is) is a woman.

They produce a lot of reports. Coinciding with international woman's day, they did a report on women in business globally.

At the end of the report they made 12 recommendations on how to get more women into business. All well and good. Except 3 were for women. They were basically, act like men. Why? After a report saying that changing the old structures would be beneficial you just want people to mold themselves to perputuate it?!

And the final recommendation was to 'challenge discrimination in your workplace'.

Yes of course. Silly me. All these men discriminating against me because I forgot to ask them not to!

No fucking recognition of the work women put in to get any where in businessin the first place then. Or in some parts of the world, educated.

Of course there is Yops. It's a very obvious pattern and there's no mystery as to why it exists.

The recommendations are fairly standard career development advice though, aside from the challenge discrimination one. You're not missing out some vital piece of info here.

They recommend that women challenge discrimination

Do they recommend that organisations take reports of discrimination seriously and act on them? Or create an environment where people feel it's not career suicide to report stuff?

Offhand I don't recall it being that well linked up. Not got it in front off me at the minute. Did have something about consider board quotas for governments. Must have had something about the need to consider women more for senior roles for businesses.

I did point out, with examples, that challenging discrimination can get you sacked on the departmental discussion group set up on this report (weird social media work hybrid thing they have).

Surely the solution to ending stigma of p-t men is for them to challenge discrimination? If your reading of the report was correct and it's those who was being discriminated against who should challenge the discrimination (although I interpreted it as meaning that everyone should challenge discrimination).

I don't get the point of this report,though. It appears to have had absolutely nothing to say that hasn't already been said. Your new CEO appears to have wanted to make the point that women are holding themselves back by applying the 100% instead of the 60% rule. But some useful advice on how companies can assist in the breaking of that mentality might be useful - we've talked on here about the wording of adverts (particularly the need not to state that competencies are essential when they aren't). Internal recruiting managers could make it a point to invite candidates to apply and all recruiting managers could be willing not to recruit a candidate who only fits the 60% rule. It's a poor, lazy choice for an organisation - but apparently that isn't the problem?!

I do challenge discrimination in my workplace. Responses have been:

• It's not the Company Working Men's Club, though. (Pointing out why there is a need for the women's network, and why isn't there a men's network which you girls should set up for us, because we don't actually care enough to do it ourselves.)
• Women have just as many opportunities as men, if they choose to take them. (I am the f'ing STEM coordinator; do none if you listen when I talk about barriers to girls and women in IT? I've sat on a stage talking about it - oh, but you don't go to diversity events, because you know you don't have a problem, because you're working here, Bear.)
• HR responded to a query about whether they remove personal information like names from CVs to reduce the risk of unconscious bias in recruiting. They don't, because all our managers are aware of this and it's not an issue. (But they're not all aware, and it is an issue. Well, not currently, as we're not recruiting just now, but when we are it is.)

I could go on, but my blood pressure says it's best not to.

I need [crying tears of frustration] and [bleeding forehead from banging head on desk].

Thinking cynically the real point of the report is to cash in on woman's day, showing off our global research capabilities, showing off the female front senior author and our new female CEO. it's all about selling the brand. Another reason not to actually link to the bloody thing.

Yes EBearhug! None of that was bloody well in there! No acknowledgment of getting to a place where you could conceivably apply to a senior role, no solutions about blinding cvs... all about 'perceptions' of what was stopping women ceos existing. From businessses. Who aren't exactly unbiased in this area!

"whether they remove personal information like names from CVs to reduce the risk of unconscious bias in recruiting." Oh that would be such a good idea. And would work on many discriminatory levels, not just sexism.

I have a feeling I know which company this is, the flaming bastards. Unfortunately I cannot comment fully or openly due to legal agreements around the women they have discriminated against for pregnancy/maternity related reasons. Although I will say their opportunities for working fathers are excellent. Presumably it helps because as a man you're more likely to hold a senior position and can call your own tune and there's none of this tricky having babies business to contend with for months at a time that means you have to "prove yourself again".

Anything that has the message "oppressed, don't let the oppressors oppress you so much" deserves to be shoved up the back passage of the person who wrote it and anyone who promotes it.

Telling women to challenge discrimination is about as useful as those posters that tell women to watch how they dress so they don't get raped.

Wrong target, wrong message.

Flaming? Pm if you like, but that's not an allusion I recognise. Or I'll pm you. It's not a big 4 firm. I was spared that indignity when I was tupe'd.

I hate this sort of stuff. Lots of "women should step up and take more risks and be more visible". I look forward to the equivalent advice that men should shut up and step aside and stop dominating on the basis of nothing

Honestly it's nonsense. I am quite senior in my industry and I am one of very few women here. All the women I know in this industry are awesome and we are all way behind where the men are in terms of seniority, pay etc. I notice these days when I go to conferences, the women are often really good speakers whereas many of the men are coasting. I think it's because women have had to work harder all the way along. But are they the CEOs? No. Why? Because men hire men. Because the industry hires men. Because hiring a woman feels like you are making a point.

It's going to take us time to get there but this whole discourse that it's women who have to change and they are just not big and tough enough to take it is just absolute nonsense and really quite insulting.

Also in financial services btw so have seen this loads of times.

I'm sure it's common throughout financial services. The old boys networks are depressingly alive and well.

All of these reports imply that women don't succeed because they're somehow too stupid to understand basic career tips that men understand. It is so fucking insulting.

Not that following those basic career tips and indeed, attitude, gets you labelled as aggressive or god forbid, bitchy

Don't forget 'scary', LadyRainicorn - a friend in a Facebook group had this thrown at her last week.

Well of course Lady. Women understand perfectly well how to 'get ahead,' we're not fucking thick. But you can't get anywhere if people constantly block your way.

Sorry. Sacarsm overtook me. I've been both aggressive and the charming 'lairy'. Which is sad because my clients really like me.

My client sector is more interesting for women in senior roles. It's the public sector. Did you know that the senior management team for MOPAC (mayor of london policing, theyre in charge of the met police) are all women?

I am scary (decided that probably works in my favour, do didn't challenge that one.)

I am also the emotional one. That did result in me offering spontaneous education on how women are judged differently from men for the same behaviours, but I suspect this was just seen as evidence proving their point. I may not have helped my cause by pointing at least I can feel emotions, because I am not dead inside, and I try to get things improved rather than just accepting all the shit without question.

I'm described as 'direct,' I think because I don't skirt around things politely while fluttering my eyelashes winsomely. Funnily enough my rude male colleague is described as 'no-nonsense.' Subtle but important difference IMO.

What I want to know is, what's so scary about a competent, smart woman?

Any ideas Yops?