As those of you who follow my column know, I am a theoretical sociologist. As well as having almost twenty PhD dissertations under my belt, I also have an undergraduate degree, and am half way through a book that looks at how sociology influences almost all of the decisions we make.
Sociology is an intensive subject that doesn’t garner the credit it deserves. Whether on macro or micro levels, sociology has an impact on every single element of our lives. That’s why I’ve decided to utilize it in this article as a means of explaining the normalities sociology can tell us about the business world.
To break it down into easily digestible sections is the best course of action for this piece, as I always need to include at least a portion of humor in my works.
Most women will not be happy with what I have to say, but please remember-this is based on SCIENCE, and certainly not on opinion. For legal reasons, I am unable to reference my sources. However, I will be detailing how to obtain this data at the end of this article.
Don’t Try To Play With The Boys
The world of employment is run by men. We all know this. However, you don’t have to pretend to be a man in order to become successful in your place of work. In fact, it has been found that acting in a masculine way is inherently detrimental to female progression in the workplace.
Recent trends have shown that the growth in ‘women in the workplace’ has put men in an awkward emotional position. Traditional masculinities, defined as “manhood,” are not the same as traditional femininities. Whereas feminine qualities are gifted to women through genetic material, (ie: boobs), manhood is earned through action. When women attempt to join forces with men on their level, imitating their ideals, it doesn’t make you “one of the boys,” it simply demeans the efforts they have made to assert themselves under the membership of manhood club.
In layman’s terms: men don’t like it when you try to be on their level, because they think they’ve worked harder than you to get there. Honestly, on an emotional level, most men probably have worked harder than the career-hungry woman to get to their position in life. Any women involved in a long-term relationship or marriage can attest to the concept that most men are far more emotionally unstable than any woman in business.
When it comes to employment, women are better off acting like women. If you’re not sure what this means then carry on reading.
You Can Wear Pants If You Want, Just Make Sure They’re Attractive
This is both a metaphorical and practical tip. Personally, I’m not a fan of pants. I will occasionally wear a pair of light-blue denim jeans, but for the most part, I am a fan of leggings, dresses, and skirts. No one respects a woman in an ill-fitting pant suit or sweatpants at midday. Can you imagine how intimidating being faced by a woman in a pantsuit is?
You may construe that as a good thing, but do you really want to intimidate your boss? No. Intimidating a male boss (who isn’t attracted to you) is a one-way ticket to being stuck in your position forever. In the business world, attempting to wear the pants in a predominantly male space has been found to be interpreted as undermining, patronizing, and a poor career move.
Admit Your Limitations
A very important man in my life was the first person to explain to me that vulnerability is a good thing. Without being vulnerable, we are limited to our singular designated label. Whether this be in relationships or the workplace, vulnerability is the essential tool needed to humanize your character. Strong women with austere presentations of self have historically been criticized for being the bitch. It is this concept that lost Hillary Clinton the 2016 General Election. No one likes a bitchy, controlling woman. No one likes a bitchy, controlling man either, but unfortunately, historical continuity has made these two traits acceptable if their work is top quality.
Humanizing your character allows male bosses to have the perception of being close to you. This leads me to my third and final point… (that my boyfriend so lovingly described to me in discussion of this article earlier this afternoon)
Embrace The Power of The Pussy
You want to puke, don’t you? Well, do it later. Right now I need you to listen.
Embracing the power of the pussy doesn’t mean you should sleep with your boss. Any fan of the Vagina Monologues will understand that your reproductive system is a gift. It is a marvelous, beautiful, wondrous thing that God has given us to use for any and all reasons we should desire.
I always believed I should never let sex be an option, even a fantasy for any potential male employers. About two years ago, I began to read more about real women who had used their sexuality to move up the career ladder, and I knew that my daydream about feminism, and being rewarded purely on merit, was highly unlikely.
Though I can honestly say I have never had sex with a boss in order to get a job, even the smallest tease has proved overwhelmingly positive in results. From that moment, I knew that I would never be able to wear flat shoes to a meeting (I have ridiculously long legs compared to the rest of my body).
We really do have to work what our mammas gave us.
So What Does This Mean For Equality?
The concept of men and women as equals is like trying to get a spoon and a bathtub to be equals. Both are essential parts of the modern world, but are viewed in two completely different ways. Men and women will never be equal because we’ll never be the same. We have two contrasting mentalities, are raised in utterly different ways, and have two inherently separate mindsets about almost every element found in qualitative and quantitative sociological theory.
Men are good at being competitive. They are raised to be animals. Men are creatures that fight and work endlessly for what they want. Women were developed to be mothers. Now, we want to be more, and that is a great thing. However, many people forget that we’re still in the dawning stages of female empowerment.
Accepting that sex sells, that our femininity is our best tool, and allowing ourselves to be somewhat objectified behind closed doors, is part of the bargain. We can run for president. We can be CEOs, Chiefs of Staff, Editors, and homeowners. We just have to learn how to do it in a way that doesn’t fuck over the very people we want to be equals to.
As a heterosexual, I love men. I love the way they smell, the way they hold hands, how they feel when their single arm can wrap all the way around my waist. I mean, is there anything better than waking up next to someone who makes you feel loved, safe, and warm? No. So let’s calm down on the lies of feminist groups that tell us we have to hate this stuff and rise up against it, because the science is just NOT in their favor.
For more information about where the theories discussed in this article were developed, I suggest using a search engine such as Google Scholar. Phrases such as, “gender equality men”, “social capital women workplace”, “female leadership theory”, and so forth. Ensure that your studies are from 2013 onwards in order to obtain the most relevant data. Please feel free to contact Kay Smythe directly for more information. Pricing on her consultations, and other works are available on her personal website.
Kay Smythe, The British Bitch in America.
You can follow her on:
“As well as having almost twenty PhD dissertations under my belt, I also have an undergraduate degree, and am half way through a book that looks at how sociology influences almost all of the decisions we make.”
Twenty dissertations? Are you a ghostwriter for PhD candidates?
I was curious when I read the headline for your article, mainly because I was a bit insulted by your assertion. As I begin to read, it occurred to me that I never consciously considered sociology as an influencer. I viewed it as a social science, wherein you went out into the field, studied cultures and communities, and interacted with people to gain understanding and data. I thought people and their contracts, constructs, and constraints were the “influencers” and sociologists, the reporters describing the shifting tide of stasis and change. Thanks for enlightening me to macro and micro approaches. But I must disagree. It is not “science” in the sense that academia uses it, at least not to my understanding. Your use of the term is misleading.
To the article. It’s one thing to experience the pitfalls of playing with the boys, and sleeping with the men. But to state that the only way for a woman to rise in corporate culture is to deny her sense of self in order to feed her desire for success. Yet even the best of the best are under the ever-watchful eye of corporate cultures that create reasons to deny your potential.
There are many more ways to achieve success besides what you’ve outlined. We have evolved and endured long enough to know that those social contracts you describe are slowly and steadily being diminished and dismissed by entrepreneurism, talented collaborations, and highly trained, intelligent women.
We are strong, and we shouldn’t have to hide it. Don’t forget: As Mother, our children needed us before we needed them. When did the tables turn? What happened? While you may advocate humbling one’s self for the sake of corporate (male) recognition as a pathway to success, I advocate for raising and developing even more strong women prepared to create workplaces and develop workforces. We must continue teaching our babies, our sons, our daughters so they know the different paths available to them. We need to teach them, above all else, how to treat each other and why. They should know it is not wise to strive simply for status and stash. Success is also about the values we model for those in our care. Those things that will define and allow us to achieve as individuals while we bask in constructive change and our collective success.
If I were to write a sequel to your article with the task of “influencing” women’s decisions, I would encourage women to look beyond the social contract and constraints you describe. It is not necessary to measure success by sleeping with bosses, wearing tight little pencil skirts that in all honesty, don’t wear well after eight hours. It’s silly to give up comfort to look sexy yet we walk on stilts, wearing shoes that ultimately end up leaving lesions on our feet. And through it all, many of us never take the time to cultivate our minds – to imagine better paths on better terms.
I would hope to influence women (and the men who love them) to look beyond beating someone else’s drum. Social contracts are created, enforced, and continue to persist. Yet we, women, have historically and socially shown our potential and ability to create new contracts and new constructs. We’ve remained strong despite the challenges they’ve thrown our way.
My advice? Make a contract with yourself then construct the life you want.. Build your own empire, create your brand. Yes. It is hard. I will not lie. And that is why only strong women need apply.
Keep writing! Would love to hear more about those twenty dissertations…
This is a bizarrely written essay.
Do you have a PhD in Theoretical Sociology? Your phrasing implies that you wrote twenty dissertations, completed a PhD and a Bachelor’s, and are writing a book. However, what you have actually said is ambiguous enough to also mean that you have read twenty dissertations, completed a BA or BS in Sociology, and have read half of a book. Those are very different things, and to structure your list of bona fides in a way that can so easily be misinterpreted is very, very strange.
This sentence gives me even more pause than your tortured credentials: “For legal reasons, I am unable to reference my sources.” If you wish to comply with the legalities of intellectual property, you must to cite your sources. The absence of citations implies that the information you are presenting is all original thought. These ideas aren’t. By not providing sources you have committed the prose equivalent of the song “Blurred Lines.” You didn’t think of these ideas all on your own, you didn’t perform the original work that supports and informs their validity, and you have elided the authors who did that labor.
Merely stating that you are building off of the scholarship of others without identifying them is worse than writing the essay without this disclaimer. You are using the aura of empiricism to add weight to your words without presenting that data for inspection. We have no way of examining your essay to determine if anything you say is factual. If I were to seek out scholarship on this subject and find something that contradicts your argument, you could simply assert that the data I found is not the data you used. Your assertions about your credentials and the empiricism of your arguement are appeals to authority, but the only authority you have is your own assertions. I cannot respect an argument where the writer uses such circular logic to support her own trustworthiness.
Attribution is the absolute most important quality of academic writing, no matter what the field. I am aware that is a blog post, not a journal article. However, anyone who has completed an undergraduate degree should be familiar with the need to cite your sources. Your refusal to do so is not mitigated by your instructions to use certain keywords on Google Scholar.
If you are seeking employment in your field, this is a terrible piece of writing to have as an available sample of your work. It demonstrates an unwillingness to clearly state your credentials and a profound lack of understanding of how attribution works.