Ex-Bell execs allege sexism
Mon, 2008-01-14 11:44
#1
rural - Francesca
Ex-Bell execs allege sexism
Mon, 2008-01-14 11:44
#2
rural - Francesca
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/293750]Toronto Star article[/url]
quote:
Fran Boutilier and Alison Green kicked butt when they went to work for Bell ExpressVu.The first female senior executives at the satellite TV delivery service, they surpassed the performance of their male predecessors, posting better results and earning shares and praise, respectively, from Bell Canada's top boss, Michael Sabia, the two say in sworn court documents.
But one day, at an executive retreat, the two women refused to kick or be kicked.
Mon, 2008-01-14 14:32
#3
As a customer of Bell, it saddens me to no end that there is such discord there at the top.
Tue, 2008-01-15 04:39
#4
rural - Francesca
Hence me not a Bell phone customer anymore
Tue, 2008-01-15 16:04
#5
I deBelled myself a few months ago. I've never felt better.
Sat, 2008-01-26 07:48
#6
My post from the duplicate thread I started on this (and have since closed):
[url=http://www.thestar.com/article/293750]Another reason to hate Bell Canada. As if I didn't have enough.[/url]
quote:
Fran Boutilier and Alison Green kicked butt when they went to work for Bell ExpressVu.The first female senior executives at the satellite TV delivery service, they surpassed the performance of their male predecessors, posting better results and earning shares and praise, respectively, from Bell Canada's top boss, Michael Sabia, the two say in sworn court documents.
But one day, at an executive retreat, the two women refused to kick or be kicked.
In documents filed in a civil lawsuit alleging gender discrimination in the workplace by their former employers, the women say they had to put up with a macho corporate culture that included sexist, vulgar language and being frozen out of drinking sessions with the "boys' club."
The company denies the women were subjected to discrimination.
A July 2005 "off-site" retreat, organized around a martial arts theme, was "over the top," Green said in an interview.
They were assigned The Art of War to read. "War music" was playing. "We had to wear war paraphernalia ... bandannas, costumes and props," Boutilier said in an interview. And they were expected to participate in a judo class.
"I'm from New York," says Green. "I'm used to crazy things. What shocked me was Fran and I were both in business attire. We were both wearing high heels, stockings and skirts."
Boutilier paired off with a third woman who was there from a different arm of Bell Canada. Green says she refused to pair off with a man to practise kicks, punches and chokeholds.
"It was full body contact," she says. "There was no way. ... I kind of feigned an injury and said that I couldn't do it. I mean that's rule 101. No bodily contact between male and female employees."
Not long after that, the two women, separately, earned the dubious distinction of being the company's first two female VPs to be fired.
Some reaction:
[url=http://www.thestar.com/living/article/295075]Antonia Zerbisias[/url]
quote:
The game must change.One thing that Smith did was hold a martial arts retreat where managers played middle-aged Ninja Turtles to "war music'' in a misbegotten attempt to forge team spirit.
Extreme? No doubt. Typical? Probably not.
But it's indicative of the locker room mentality that permeates too many executive floors.
Going all fists of fury would not only create a hostile environment for most women, it probably would for many men. But boys are trained to suck it up and take one for the team. However, is this any way to run a business?
[url=http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/294008]Judy Rebick and Libby Burnham[/url]
quote:
"You're kidding me!" exclaimed Judy Rebick, a culture and communications professor from Ryerson University, with experience in women's issues. "You're talking about a Monty Python skit, right?"Convinced the case is real, Rebick groaned, saying "this appears to be incredibly, unbelievably backward."
Playing war games at an off-site retreat is asking for trouble, she said, adding employers should be very careful.
"That company must be blind. These days, corporations are trying to focus on corporate culture skills and professional development – not war games."
Added Rebick: "Are you sure it wasn't just a skit?"
quote:
Libby Burnham, co-founder of Equal Voice, which pushes for more women in public life, was distressed at the women's description of the retreat. It's an image of male and female employees in jujitsu holds with, say, Ride of the Valkyries blasting away."What it means is the glass ceiling is shifting. Or rather, it's a new form of glass ceiling and it has an edge. When women get to a certain level, they get pushed right off the edge," said Burnham.
"The retreat sounds totally inappropriate. But then, little boys like to get down and wrestle around on the floor," she added. "I guess when women don't like to do it, they send them off and then say they are not team players."
[url=http://www.thestar.com/living/article/295057]Eww.[/url]
quote:
Ladies, it could have been worse.In a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, former Bell Express Vu executives Fran Boutilier and Alison Green complained about an offsite retreat they attended, the Star reported this week.
The retreat was organized around a martial arts theme.
"War music" was playing, Green told the Star.
"We had to wear war paraphernalia ... bandanas, costumes and props," Boutilier said.
The women were told to read The Art of War. They were expected to participate in a judo class.
But if they'd been attending a themed "team building" event organized by Zest Corporate Adventures, they might have had to dress up as pirates.
Their success would have been measured by how many "coveted pieces of eight" they'd been able to acquire, using a "tattered treasure map," to rescue their leader who'd been "kidnapped by a roving band of scurvy pirates."
The Pirate Ransom is one of 10 themed corporate adventures offered by Zest, a company launched in November as an offshoot of Oakville-based Delta Synergy, which organizes more traditional training sessions.
Sat, 2008-01-26 08:49
#7
I thought it went largely unnoticed because women here didn't think Bell Executives to be the poster women for feminism.
I mean, I know-- if the allegations are true-- that it's wrong from a feminist point of view.
But really. It's not like they are ever going to end up asking for change on Younge street because of all this.
There are larger fish to fry, and I think Bell Executives of all genders deserve each other.
I mean, these women have the best lawyers money can buy, and as such will have the best justice money can buy. In this respect, the feminist battle is over for them. They can, and will, look after themselves.
I resent the seeming appeal to the feminist community the original Toronto Star article seemed to be. I think it does more to hurt Canadian women whose problems deserve the attention this article took space from.
[ 26 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 05:03
#8
rural - Francesca
I'm sorry but...WTF?
Women who climb the corporate ladder are no longer qualified to be feminists???
Is there a LICO for being a Feminists?
This goes back to the thread on "suffering" in a way.
If I've miss read you, please let me know.
In 2004 I spent June through early November homeless.
Yep - the rural sense of homeless, I was living in my parents basement with my 14 year old. I was a freelance journalist and couldn't make enough to live on my own.
In the past 3 years I've managed to better negotiate and boost my job from 3 days a week to full time, and negotiated a significant raise hike in 2006. That enabled me to buy my own townhouse in July of 2006, my car is just starting its 2nd year of a two year lease.
Yeah I struggle with too much credit card debt - stupid ex boyfriend - and sometimes I can't sleep worrying about how I"m going to pay for college for my daughter.
But not one of the women I work with, or men for that matter, on issues of poverty, has ever accused me of being a sell out.
During the darkest days I had my column and my community followed my journey, noted my successes and consoled my losses.
I resent, deeply resent, anyone who makes the slightest inference that because I'm not "poor" anymore that I've not suffered, and I don't understand the plight of the poor.
I've had friends tell me I'm courageous, I'm not frikkin courageous, I had no choice, I couldn't give up, I had children (my son lived with his dad during his teen years) so I couldn't give up.
So am I over reacting here? No doubt! But don't anyone every tell me I having 'nice' things is a sell out to my sisters in the trenches.
Sun, 2008-01-27 05:28
#9
quote:
Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
[b]I'm sorry but...WTF?Women who climb the corporate ladder are no longer qualified to be feminists???[/b]
Absolutely agree. Discrimination against and disenfranchisement of women plagues society from "top" to "bottom". If a female CEO is the object of sexist jokes, or subtly denied membership in some plush club, or not accommodated in maternity situations, or subject to discriminatory hiring or promotion criteria, it is an attack against all women and all of society.
Having said that, I think the "war games" retreat that triggered this thread sounds really secondary - like it was picked by the reporter for its sensational content - and it's not the best example of gender discrimination. I concur with Antonia Zerbisias:
quote:
Going all fists of fury would not only create a hostile environment for most women, it probably would for many men.
Keep reading the article and you get a much better flavour for the real allegations of discrimination and humiliation that underlie this lawsuit:
quote:
In their court submissions, the women say Smith met with male colleagues at local pubs and bars, or in his office, but excluded the women. Bell, in response, says Smith met with individuals on a one-on-one basis to foster an "open dialogue."Under Smith, executive meetings were run "in a sexist fashion" where men monopolized the conversation, the women say in their court submissions. Male executives were permitted to make "vulgar, sexist and demeaning comments" without consequences. [...]
In the court documents, Green says Terry Snazel, vice-president of engineering, told her on several occasions, in front of other male executives and employees, "Go f--- yourself."
She was told she was "too emotional" at meetings, as well as during an outside performance review that took place an hour after she'd been advised she might have cervical cancer, and was anxious to leave to undergo further medical testing.
But a male executive colleague who two years earlier had been diagnosed with prostate cancer was given wide latitude for outbursts, she says in the documents.
These allegations closely parallel many complaints of discrimination, harassment, and "poisoned workplace" which arise in places where our union members are employed - and which are routinely upheld.
The fact that executives treat each other in such degrading and sexist fashion can't be unrelated to the kinds of treatment they mete out - or turn a blind eye to - in the workplaces they manage or in society as a whole.
In matters of gender discrimination, as of other kinds, it is still true to say that an injury to one is an injury to all.
Sun, 2008-01-27 06:07
#10
Tommy Paine's "larger fish to fry" argument is really saying "only small fish deserve respect... as long as they remain small".
It parallels the reality that the more power someone from an oppressed 'minority' has or claims, the more repression s/he is faced with. Because if s/he was to be recognized for what s/he is worth, was allowed to use whatever power s/he has reached, the rest of that group would take heart and create massive change...
BTW, I love this quote from the article:
quote:
...a male executive colleague who two years earlier had been diagnosed with prostate cancer was given wide latitude for outbursts...
Seems like a good deal to offer MCPs: free rein for a little while, then castration... [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 06:18
#11
Unionist is right, in principle of course. An injury to one is an injury to all, etc., and the hangman comes for he who serves him best.
My point was, why should we devote so much concern over these women who, I might point out, are more scions of the patriarchy than most of the entire population.
Do we believe in the "trickle down" theory of equality?
How does it forward the cause of women to enable some women a comfortable office suit where they can foment economic warfare against less affluent women?
Is that progress? For a select few, I guess.
quote:
In 2006, Bell settled a long-running pay equity dispute with a $104 million payment to thousands of telephone operators who had been earning up to $4 an hour less than workers in comparable male-dominated jobs.
I note that while the sexist nastyness of Bell was working to their benefit, these women weren't calling in favours with reporters to get column space for the feminist cause. They liked the game when someone else's ox was being gored.
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 06:24
#12
rural - Francesca
So no woman can sit as a CEO?
Are we to be relegated to a pink gettto of charities, not-for-profits and volunteerism?
What about small business women?
They should keep thier successes to under $50 000 a year for risk of ire and condemnation?
Oh God forbid we elect them too, then they would be just like all the other hundreds of whtie men......
Sun, 2008-01-27 06:34
#13
Francesca, I didn't say that.
Sun, 2008-01-27 06:40
#14
rural - Francesca
then please explain...I'm so lost
Sun, 2008-01-27 06:47
#15
Well, I am saying what these women went through is wrong, (although, "The Art of War" is hardly a traumatic read) but basically "big whoop".
They are fully capable of getting the best lawyers, and purchasing for themselves the best justice for their cause. These aren't women who are not going to be okay after all this.
Win or lose.
And, win or lose, they'll be back at some other company at the top of the corporate ladder, making sure the women at the bottom of the ladder don't earn what they should be earning.
Victory for feminism?
Sun, 2008-01-27 06:49
#16
Tommy, I understand what you're saying, though I don't agree, and I'd invite you to reflect more. Sexism has nothing inherently to do with income levels or social class. Neither does racism. If the Bank of North America has separate bathrooms for Black members of their Board of Directors, will we say, "so what?" If a government passes an edict saying Jews are no longer allowed to buy and sell factories, will we say, "why waste our attention on the wealthy and powerful?" Of course your answer will be "no" to these extreme examples. But the second-class treatment of female executives is of the same nature.
Sun, 2008-01-27 06:55
#17
Yes, and it will all play out, just like it won't for millions of other women in Canada the Star and other papers don't have time for.
Your more extreme examples don't fit the situation, though Unionist. If the allegations are true, the two women have all the advantages of law to remedy the situation.
And will no doubt go much more quickly and profitably than it did for the women in the pay equity case mentioned above.
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 06:55
#18
rural - Francesca
We rely on women with the capacity to fight, to fight. They need to punish the compnay, to bring the spotlight to the company's sexism.
Women with voice, need to speak for those who have no voice.
Sun, 2008-01-27 07:00
#19
I agree.
I'm just saying these ain't those women.
Sun, 2008-01-27 07:06
#20
rural - Francesca
dems two arrrs womens
womens is womens, and when one of us hurts, wes all hurts
Do you not realize that if things don't change at the top of the corporate ladder, that things will never change at the bottom either?
Do you think that the humiliation, fear and concern they felt, when subjected to the exercise was real?
Sun, 2008-01-27 07:19
#21
If it happened, it was real. I don't doubt, given how Bell does business, that the people at the top are nasty, and capable of all that.
And I note that these two women fit into that culture nicely until it went against them.
These aren't women who used-- or who are using-- their voice for anyone but themselves, and in the process, shouting loud enough to drown out the voices we should be listening to.
When Conrad Black complained that the prosecutor in his case was persecuting him, I don't doubt there was a kernel of truth to that. Prosecutors can be mean people, and not given to be entirely bound by the law. But do I care about poor old Conrad's persecution? Well yaa.....no.
And it's not because he's rich. It's because of what he had done in his life. I don't not care about the plight of these women formerly of Bell because they are affluent, but because they are trying to wrap themselves in the flag of feminism, where before they could have given a rat's ass about other women.
Should Larry Flint have the freedom of expression? Hell yes. Is he my poster boy for freedom of expression? Hell no.
The enemies of our enemies are not always our friends.
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 07:28
#22
I have to say, I'm always torn between Tommy's point of view on this and the liberal feminist point of view. He's right that these women, who have been so good for Bell's bottom line (and ask yourself, what did they do to increase profits? I'll bet a worker or two got screwed in the process, and those women ain't "workers") got there on the backs of those less fortunate, and are now part of the machine that oppresses other workers (and at places like Bell, there are a lot of women in pink-collar jobs - at least the place is unionized).
On the other hand, unionist and Francesca are right - you can't let sexism happen anywhere in society, even in high society.
Do I feel sorry for these women though? No. I think what they do to oppress their working class sisters is way worse than what happened to them. But I do think that a spotlight should be shined on such abuses by men at the executive level.
Sun, 2008-01-27 07:38
#23
At what point does a worker cease to be a worker? Since when has the glass ceiling disappeared and is it that easy for women to get past lower management? Aren't women being held to a conveniently higher morality standard that allows us to justify their being trampled upon once they manage to get past those barriers? Men being allowed to be organization men but wonmen being either demnized shrews or deserving victims? I don't think it is 'liberal feminism' to acknowledge that women are hurt and fought by men as women, regardless of the status liberal propaganda tells us they can achieve.
Sun, 2008-01-27 07:43
#24
rural - Francesca
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]
These aren't women who used-- or who are using-- their voice for anyone but themselves, and in the process, shouting loud enough to drown out the voices we should be listening to.[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ][/b]
How do you know that?
How do you know that they didn't help women's groups through thier postions of power? That they didn't reach out and volunteer on the weekends in their own time to lift up other women? Do you know they didn't use thier corporate connections to help 'little' people?
Such a double standard!
Sun, 2008-01-27 07:47
#25
Well, I don't. But if they did, I have a feeling they would have said so.
But I am assuming-- I think on the right side of Occam's razor.
Case in point, did they tell the reporter from the Star (and, btw, how did that reporter get alerted to the story?) that, come what may, they'd be okay, maybe a better idea for a story would be the plight of homeless women? Or of little old ladies on fixed incomes being victimized by Bell Canada's "slamming"?
As long as we're wonderin' about stuff.....
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 07:53
#26
rural - Francesca
your assumption is that they didn't, my assumption is to give them the benefit of the doubt....
Every corporate woman I have met, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, has been involved in furthering issues of women's equality
Sun, 2008-01-27 07:54
#27
Maybe we missed these latter day feminist Bell Canada Executives' disassociation/condemnation of Bell Canada's years of fighting their female workers' attempt to achieve their right to pay equity.
Sun, 2008-01-27 08:00
#28
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Aren't women being held to a conveniently higher morality standard that allows us to justify their being trampled upon once they manage to get past those barriers? [/b]
No. They're not. When have I ever let MEN off the hook for running pink collar ghettoes?
Liberal feminism of the sort that backs power women like Hillary Clinton and rich women who oppress their poorer sisters leaves me cold, Martin. I prefer feminism that actually incorporates class issues.
Sun, 2008-01-27 08:03
#29
quote:
Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
[b]How do you know that they didn't help women's groups through thier postions of power? That they didn't reach out and volunteer on the weekends in their own time to lift up other women? Do you know they didn't use thier corporate connections to help 'little' people?[/b]
As Adam says, where were they when the "little people" in their company were fighting for pay equity? I'm not sure, but I don't think those women's names were all that prominent in the articles I was reading about the issue at that time. Who gives a damn whether they volunteer for charity? All rich people do that, so that they can get positive strokes (gosh, she's such a wonderful, giving rich person!) and go to work on Monday with a clean conscience while they fuck over their underlings.
Sun, 2008-01-27 08:08
#30
Of course it's important, as I've said, that all women are free from this kind of crap, whether they are rich, poor, executives or Tim Horton's cashiers.
But the thing is, these particular individuals haven't-- I am supposing with some reason-- exactly cared about the cause they are now trying to use to slant the jury in their up coming civil case.
They are not promoting the cause of feminism, they are exploiting it to their own ends.
Gee. Wish I would have found those words earlier, I would have got more done around the house this morning.
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 08:22
#31
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]
They are not promoting the cause of feminism, they are exploiting it to their own ends.[/b]
Tommy - when workers are fired, we defend them, whether or not they are "promoting the cause of trade unionism". They may not even be very nice or popular people. Often, they're not.
When anyone is the victim of discrimination, we don't focus on the victims' motives.
I don't care why these women are taking this action. If their allegations are accurate (and that remains to be seen, although I have to say they have the ring of credibility to them!), then progressive people should speak out against the creation of such conditions which are hostile to women - no matter who the women are.
quote:
Originally posted by rural_Francesca:
[b]Every corporate woman I have met, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, has been involved in furthering issues of women's equality.[/b]
I guess, to be consistent, I'd have to say that I find Francesca's comment to be irrelevant, even if it is universally true. Victims don't have to be progressive or great fighters to be defended against discrimination.
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 08:36
#32
I think the point was being made to oppose Tommy_Paine's hypothesized slur with Rural_Francesca's experience.
But I agree with Unionist: our focus should be on the oppressors, not on victims allegedly not deserving of our support - indeed deserving our scorn - because they haven't been seen to break sufficiently with their class on another plane. Have we seen top management men do so on union issues?
I find this use of one anti-oppression struggle against another abhorrent. It's the worst legacy of the last 30 years of internecine warfare between activists. Leftists attacking feminists for being "bourgeois" - welcome back to the Seventies - will you have disco music with that?
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 08:37
#33
quote:
Tommy - when workers are fired, we defend them, whether or not they are "promoting the cause of trade unionism". They may not even be very nice or popular people. Often, they're not.When anyone is the victim of discrimination, we don't focus on the victims' motives.
And, oh, haven't we gritted our teeth sometimes in that last grievance meeting with the company before we select an arbitrator?
Thing is, these women [i]ARE[/i] being defended by the women whose shoulders they are standing on, who previously won the right to launch a civil suit and have standing in a court of law, equal to others.
I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have their day in court, or have equal rights or anything like that.
I'm saying that this is part of their own personal campaign, and we shouldn't be so naive about it. They're attempting to use your sense of decency to their own personal profit.
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 08:43
#34
Any one who defends her or his rights can be derided as being on a "personal campaign".
Defending one's rights is not contradictory to doing so in solidarity with other oppressed women. If Bell women feel this is so, who are you to try and shame/shout them down?
Sun, 2008-01-27 09:14
#35
quote:
who are you to try and shame/shout them down?
I didn't go out, hire a private detective to spy on Bell, or go over court documents to unearth this story just to poop all over them.
[i]They[/i] brought it to [i]us[/i]. Looking for our sympathy, and if we happen to be chosen to be on the jury in their civil suit... but I think-- and I doubt doubt you think-- there are higher priorities in the cause of feminism. So many so, that this hardly merits the articles their lawyers perhaps arranged in the Star.
Your chain is being yanked.
Sun, 2008-01-27 10:00
#36
rural - Francesca
BS
You wish to stand in judgement of women based on economic status, accusing them of not deserving of equality
Sun, 2008-01-27 10:19
#37
Well, I'd like to think I'm fairer than that-- if harsh. But the last words are yours, I have to go to the Motor City for a day.
Sun, 2008-01-27 10:21
#38
writer
Oh, forget it.
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: writer ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 10:30
#39
rural - Francesca
YESSS!!! Thank you!
I don't think women are exempt from corporate greed anymore than men are.
But at the same time if wrongs are done, on a gendered framework, then we have to do something about it.
If I could provide (indulge) in another analogy (sorry I'm a storyteller), those of us in the poverty 'industry' have to advocate for the "hard to serve" poor.
Most people can get behind poverty issues, but they bring a sense of judgement to it. I've lost count of how many people point out that the people hanging at the foodbank and at the soup kitchen are *gasp* smoking...ergo - if they smoke they have money and are just lazy low life's living off...etc etc.
There are judgments on the deserving poor (single mom working with a deadbeat ex-husband) and the non-deserving poor (single mom with 3 children from 4 ex-boyfriends).
Well the same kind of "deserving" judgmental finger pointing is going on here.
Sun, 2008-01-27 19:34
#40
quote:
Unionist: If the Bank of North America has separate bathrooms for Black members of their Board of Directors, will we say, "so what?" If a government passes an edict saying Jews are no longer allowed to buy and sell factories, will we say, "why waste our attention on the wealthy and powerful?" Of course your answer will be "no" to these extreme examples. But the second-class treatment of female executives is of the same nature.Tommy_Paine: Yes, and it will all play out, just like it won't for millions of other women in Canada the Star and other papers don't have time for.
Your more extreme examples don't fit the situation, though Unionist. If the allegations are true, the two women have all the advantages of law to remedy the situation.
So would Black directors or Jewish industrialists in these situations. You are merely ignoring Unionist's excellent counter-examples. The point is not the existence or not of recourses - it is your principled ignorance/support of discrimination against 'undeserving' women.
And there is no evidence - just your utter smugness - that "it will all play out". We all know how hard it is to gather evidence and get outside help against internal "not-one-of-the-boys" discrimination.
I am puzzled: your vision of class warfare seems limited to picking on the stragglers, those marginalized by White Men.
[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2008-01-27 20:15
#41
quote:
We rely on women with the capacity to fight, to fight. They need to punish the compnay, to bring the spotlight to the company's sexism.
They witnessed the sexism but "spoke out" or to paraphrase you "brought the spotlight to the company's sexism" only when [b]they[/b] got fired. Not before.
You did not tell us where were these two Executives and what roles did they assume during their "sisters"' stuggle for pay equity.
Sun, 2008-01-27 20:19
#42
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]You did not tell us where were these two Executives and what roles did they assume during their "sisters"' stuggle for pay equity.[/b]
This isn't about their attitudes. It's about ours.
Sun, 2008-01-27 20:45
#43
And our attitudes should be to support those who turned the blind eye on sexism until they got fired.
Mon, 2008-01-28 04:45
#44
rural - Francesca
Your assumption is that they did nothing, but you have no proof, as I have no proof that they did do something.
Is there room for the concept that perhaps the front line workers, so walked on for years, would applaud women making it to senior management levels?
That as more and more women penetrate (nice masculine imagery there) the board room that the overall sexist attitude changes, slowly.
That if these women had stood, in solidarity, with their frontline sisters, and gotten fired, which would have left no women in the board rooms, would the voice and understanding of women been better heard?
Women cannot "take over" corporate Canada, but we can slowly infiltrate it, and when they are not looking, suddenly we can influence decisions etc.
Mon, 2008-01-28 05:00
#45
quote:
Is there room for the concept that perhaps the front line workers, so walked on for years, would applaud women making it to senior management levels?
Or at least rail against the sexism female execs met there, the very same sexism workers had had to endure...
Ah, don't waste your breath/fingers, RF. The notion of class NOT always dividing women is abhorrent to some. If they dont have proof of their suspicion that female solidarity is impossible, they'll make it an axiom and forge ahead without a shred of evidence.
[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2008-01-28 05:51
#46
quote:
Your assumption is that they did nothing, but you have no proof, as I have no proof that they did do something. - rural-Francesca
We have the proof that they did not speak out nor did they file any complaint when their sisters were subjected to pay equity (and surely other forms) of sexism and we have the proof that they did speak out when they were fired.
Besides, from the article:
quote:
Bell notes Boutilier was not replaced by a man, but by a woman. Bell says Green was overly aggressive in dealing with subordinates and resisted offers of coaching.
Bell Canada pursued and will pursue sexism. They count on women of the Boutilier and Green kind to provide them a cloak of egalitarianism while these very women not only turn the blind eye to sexism, they engage in the corporate sexist macho ways of 'doing business'.
Supporting women of such attitudes is no different than promoting sexism, it is just in an indirect way.
[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Mon, 2008-01-28 06:01
#47
rural - Francesca
Who defines "aggression".
A woman who stands up for herself, advocates for her point of view, and dominates the conversation is aggressive.
A man who stands up for himself, advocates for his point of view, and dominates the conversation is a good businessman.
[url=http://www.womendontask.com/questions.html]Women Don't Ask[/url]
quote:
Our research also shows that society has a strong expectation that women will abide by their assigned "roles" and reacts very negatively when they don't. Behavior that can lead a man to be seen as a "straight-shooter" or a "no-nonsense guy" can lead a woman to be seen as too pushy and aggressive. She may be called a bitch or worse, receive negative evaluations based solely on her personal style rather than on the quality of her work, and she may find herself closed out of networks or opportunities from which she might benefit.
Mon, 2008-01-28 06:13
#48
quote:
Who defines "aggression".
A woman who stands up for herself, advocates for her point of view, and dominates the conversation is aggressive.A man who stands up for himself, advocates for his point of view, and dominates the conversation is a good businessman.
We are not talking about a person standing for him/herself. We are talking about a corporate culture of being aggressive with subordinates (and competitors and attempts to unionize etc..)all for that 'higher' good which is "the bottom line".
Mon, 2008-01-28 06:29
#49
rural - Francesca
So they can fire them for being aggressive, and fire them for not being aggressive all at the same time?
Mon, 2008-01-28 06:40
#50
Maysie
I'd like to throw in my 2 cents worth:
1. The women who were fired experienced harassment and a poisoned work environment based on a sexist work culture.
2. The women were not allies to other workers, women or men, lower than them on the ladder. [An important aside is that greater expectations are placed on POC and white women who "breach" the various glass ceilings in old-boy clubs. Progressives expect them to be more open and flexible about "helping" others follow behind them, while corporate culture teaches them the opposite.]
3. The employer is now trotting out unproven allegations about work performance, a predicable move. If the employer actually had documentation to prove any of this, they would have shown them years ago. Now they're just making shit up to damage the women's reputations, and it's sad that they are being believed. This is what scummy bosses do, people!
4. As far as I know these women never presented themselves as feminists. So what? You don't have to be a feminist to experience harassment.
5. The issues around whether they are "deserving" of the attention of progressives is about the "innocence" of the "victims". This happens all the time, those of us outside the situation sitting outside in judgment. It's really not helpful, as nobody would be able to bear the weight of the "standards of innocence" required to be "worthy" of our support for harassment cases. It doesn't make what happened to them less harassing. Recall the dirt dug up on Robert Dziekanski after he was killed by the RCMP. This is by-the-book assholery.
6. Tommy, I get your point, and I agree with you that these women were imbedded into the capitalist culture and won't be as financially damaged as other much more marginalized workers, like seasonal fruit pickers in Ontario, homeworkers, piece workers in the garment industry, and many other marginalized workers. It still is wrong what those women went through. I appreciate that this medium does not allow for much subtlety or nuance.
7. Calling women out for breaking the silence is wrong. Blaming them for going to the media is wrong. More of this needs to happen, at all levels.
Mon, 2008-01-28 06:51
#51
rural - Francesca
That's worth more than 2 cents, that's about $1.39!
Excellent!