Mmmm...
Interesting responses, but I am dismayed at the antique attitude displayed by the article... It almost sounds as if we're back in the late 1940's to the 1950's, when women were supposedly "catty, vindictive, petty, manipulative, sneaky, cowardly"... And so on. You pick your insulting term indicating weakness and mental or emotional fragility and use it against women in general...
Remember, the 40's and 50's were a time when the men retuning from World War II needed jobs. During the war, many, many women had gone into the work force - and had performed quite well, despite the general prejudice against them at the time. After the war, however, when many women might have wanted to RETAIN the independence and self-reliance that came from being gainfully employed outside of the home, they were instead forced to relinquish their employment in favor of returning war veterans.
Much of the backlash against women that one saw in the 1950's was a response to that economic and social pressure...
Let me offer a different viewpoint...
Ironically, I was told of the book and information I'm about to present, when I was complaining about the most offensive female supervisor [as I mentioned above] to a journalism major who was roomate with my fiancee'. As I made comments about the "cattiness" of women, the tendency of "women to hate women", the "petty female lowly boss", and so on; he pointed me towards a book entitled, "Men and Women of the Corporation".
[P.S. I borrowed many of your comments, Band on The Run, because they closely matched my comments at that point in my life...]
He especially pointed me to chapter 7, entitled "Power", and said that I would be very surprised by what I would read there. He indicated that the authors had found during their research, that the "characteristics" supposedly attributed to "women" were ACTUALLY CHARACTERISTIC OF PEOPLE WHO HAD LITTLE TO NO POWER, AND TOO MUCH RESPONSIBILITY...!!!!!!
And I bought the book upon his suggestion, and have it in front of me. Let's see - it's been a while since I've read it...
Chapter 7 - "Power"... Subheading, "Accountability Without Power: Sources of Bureaucratic Powerlessness" - beginning on page 186...
"People who have authority without system power are powerless. People held accountable for the results produced b others, whose formal role gives themt he right to command but who lack informal political influence, access to resources, outside status, sponsorship, or mobility [corporate mobility..] prospects, are rendered powerless in the organization. They lack control over their own fate and are dependent on otehrs above them - others whom they cannot easily influence - while they are expected by virtue of position to be influential over those parallel or belw. Their sens of lack of control above is heightened by its contrast with the demands of an accountable authority position, that they mobiliz others in the interests of a task they may have had little part in shaping, to produce results they may have had little part in defining.
First-line supervisors in highly routinized functions often are functionally powerless. Their situation - caught between the demands of a management hierarchy they are unlikely to enter because of low opportunity and the resistance of workers who resent their own circumstances - led classic writers on organizations to describe them as "men in the middle". (However, they are also often "women in the middle".) They have little chance to gain power through activities, since their functions do not lend themselves to the demonstration of the extraordinary, [earlier in the book, the authors discuss how accomplishment of the "extraordinary" is often a route to advancement...] nor do they generate high visibility or solutions to organizational problems. They have few rewards to distribute, since rewards are automatically given by the organization, and their need for reliable performances from workers in order to keep their own job secure, limits the exercise of other forms of power. "I'm afraid to confront the employees because they have the power to slack, to slouch, to take too much time," a supervisor of clerical workers said, "and I need them for results. I'm measured on results... They have to do it for me." Another one said, "When I ask for help, I get punished because my manager will say, 'But it's your job. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be in that job.' So, what's their job? Sending me notes telling me it's unacceptable? They're like teachers sending me a report card." .."
Unquote...
I'm going to stop for now, as I have other tasks to take care of. However, look at the words of these authors... Doesn't some of this sound terribly familiar, even today??? Women today aren't much more "powerful" than they've been in the last century, especially with the economic downturn and financial stresses. Women in the workforce today STILL are dealing with these issues; they've been dealing with them ever since the human race chose a social value system that valued violent, death-oriented men over the nurturing, life-oriented women [need I point out that 95% of murders and nearly every war are committed by or started by MEN???]
And translate the above dynamics into the typical Kingdom Hall - I think you'll find that the stresses and powerlessness particular to women in general is exacerbated within the Watchtower Society...
Is it any wonder that women under stresses will act out - often violently - towards their own offspring, under such unfavorable dynamics???
Plus, the fact that the "feminist" movement took off in the WRONG direction from its inception with Elizabeth Cady Stanton - at least, here in the U.S.A. ... More on that, later...
Well, gotta run. I might be able to find this book online; if I do, I'll post a link...
Zid