Yes, women don’t act like self-promoting narcissists, and it is to their detriment, absolutely.

But… who else acts like that? Directors, CEOs, people in charge. People who have ambition and confidence. I remember asking freshmen (both genders) to give speeches on what they wanted to do after college. All the men said something specific: accountant, pharmacist, etc. Half the women said they just wanted to be happy. Great, but it’s not a plan that requires steps or striving. It revealed no ambition, and no confidence they could be something special.

Being a self-promoter requires confidence, something that’s whipped out of women if they have it and not helped along if they don’t.

Moreover, this is a socioeconomic issue. The most assertive women I’ve met are those who come from wealthy backgrounds. They believe they are entitled to larger salaries, more respect, etc., just as many (more?) men believe they are entitled to such things.

Which brings me to my main point: Entitlement. Harmless behaviors like fibbing a bit to get your foot in the door, or faking it till you make it, are necessary strategies in a competitive labor market, but when it comes to being promoted or getting a raise, those who believe they are entitled to more will ask for it. Unfortunately, these people are often “arrogant, self-aggrandizing jerks”. Rewarding these individuals for this behavior, and not for the work they do, is simply lazy management. It perpetuates a broken system, where those who feel entitled to privileges receive them, therefore preventing qualified and hard-working individuals from moving up.

There is an easy solution: Making all salaries public. It will become clear who deserves their salary and managers will not be so willing to give women (and men) less than they deserve lest they are called out on their sexism/racism/classism/whatever. Claiming that it’s impolite to talk about money has succeeded in keeping people in their place, and it’s time for a change. (We can talk about it. It is just money, after all.)

First off, I’m a pretty direct, “I don’t care” personality type (hence my screen name of “thealphafemme”) and I’ve recently been given the opportunity to speak and present at certain national events simply because I put myself out there and asked.

However - to Amy and all the women who are all up in arms - yes, there are some VERY different, difficult, and sometimes IMPOSSIBLE obstacles we face as compared with men (keep reading & check out my links at the end also) BUT, we certainly are NOT without fault and I’ll also argue that we cannot take ZERO responsibility for our own role in not getting certain jobs, certain opportunities, etc… especially given so many women’s willingness to placate and cater to others because we DO tend to be the nurturers who want what’s best for everyone else (sometimes at our own expense), we worry about what other people think and we DO tend to take less risks (we don’t have to go the lengths of con-artists, but I can see he was drawing the analogy to make a point) and we ARE inherently NOT as selfish and sometimes, we pay the price for that. But it most certainly does not behoove us to get our panties in wad, and get so defensive that we come across so brash in defending “who we are as women” vs. using that energy and brashness to I don’t know, maybe take some valid points from this article and take out our frustration with the situation in trying to prove Clay wrong?

Each of you may be the exception to the rule (as I am in some cases), but for every one of us women who are brazen enough to truly take charge of our careers; there are likely 1000 women who do not. We are still the minority. However, as Clay does fail to acknowledge (or likley didn’t research as this was a rant and not a case study), for every one of us who have taken charge - we’ve also likely been knocked door more times than any man who may be so bold as we have been. I know I have been.

NOW - that being said… There are a few other articles I’ve read recently that both stand in stark CONTRAST to what Clay is stating - but perhaps, they could be used to supplement Clay’s theory if he were to take this a bit further and perhaps formally case study…. because there is validity in every one of these!

(Your spam filter won’t let me post links, so I’m given you titles and pubs to look them up if you choose)

1) “Why James Chartrand Wears Women’s Underpants” (Copyblogger)
James Chartrand reveals HE is actually a “SHE” pretending to be a man… because, let’s face it… getting freelance work as a man is a lot EASIER… less negotiating, less hassle, implied respect and credability and not surprisingly; James wins bids that he also submits for as himself (as a woman) and does not get… This is a FASCINATING case study on just how deeply held the stereo-types about women are and perhaps, just how deep discrimination does take hold even if people (women included) don’t realize they are discriminating…

2) Article: Can Nice Girls Negotiate? (Harvard Business Review)

3) Referenced in above article are two others:

* Salary, Gender, and the Social Cost of Haggling (Washington Post)

—This one very much supports Clay (also with some perspective from an instructor) in which the WOMEN DO NOT ASK and THE MEN DO! Yet, then goes on to discuss studies about the different responses given to men and women when they do ask…

* Sometimes it Does Hurt to Ask: (Science Direct: Org Behavior and Human Decision Processes)

TAKE AWAY: Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more — the perception was that women who asked for more were “less nice”.

Ouch…

Suddenly, I feel myself between that proverbial rock and hard place…