On Working as a Male and Living Female --Male Privilege?
Loree Thomas
>
> This is an area I've often tried to bring up as a major issue. Today,
> Julie posted,
>
> >Loree Thomas <lor...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> >news:377D2D17...@geocities.com...
> >> Diane wrote:
> >> > this is why I believe it is not enough for such people to go about
> >> > their lives but is necessary for them to devalue those who do opt
> for
> >> > SRS as well. Putting down others in the mistaken belief that it
> will
> >> > increase one's own security is a common failing.
> >... I've written
> >in the past about how unethical I think it is for a "woman" to use the
> >resume of a man in order to get a job. MY resume lists my full legal
> >name on it. Not a man's name, but a woman's. In doing so, I cast
> >my lot with more than 3 billion women who suffer the same job
> >discrimination and other such problems of WOMEN. Your refusal to
> >cast your lot with other women is insulting to me.
>
> Of all the matters which are very difficult, may I suggest that working
> as a man and presenting as a woman in many ways is not only insulting
> to women as Julie states but reflects both discrimatory behavior and
> male privilege at its worst.
Hmm... amazing what one can do with guesses, lies and innuendo, isn't it? I
wonder how much "male privilege" I'm using when my resume has a female name
on it and I showed up for interviews presenting as female?
I suppose the promotion and raise I got at work after only a couple of
months was the result of male privilege too? It couldn't possibly be
because I work hard and am more than competent at what I do. I guess all
those people at work have x-ray vision and were able to see the penis hidden
inside my skirts and panties... and hired me and promoted me because of it.
Let's ignore the fact that a gay man is lower on the hetero sexist (read
"mainstream") totem pole than any woman, and a transgendered person is lower
still.
After all, all that really matters is "who has the penis", right?
By responding like this, you perpetuate Julie's lies. And Diane's attacks.
Truth is a bitch when it gets in the way of political posturing. Find
yourself another "male privilege" poster child. This girl isn't gonna play.
Loree
sa_a...@my-deja.com
Julie posted,
>Loree Thomas <lor...@geocities.com> wrote in message
>news:377D2D17...@geocities.com...
>> Diane wrote:
>> > this is why I believe it is not enough for such people to go about
>> > their lives but is necessary for them to devalue those who do opt
for
>> > SRS as well. Putting down others in the mistaken belief that it
will
>> > increase one's own security is a common failing.
>... I've written
>in the past about how unethical I think it is for a "woman" to use the
>resume of a man in order to get a job. MY resume lists my full legal
>name on it. Not a man's name, but a woman's. In doing so, I cast
>my lot with more than 3 billion women who suffer the same job
>discrimination and other such problems of WOMEN. Your refusal to
>cast your lot with other women is insulting to me.
Of all the matters which are very difficult, may I suggest that working
as a man and presenting as a woman in many ways is not only insulting
to women as Julie states but reflects both discrimatory behavior and
male privilege at its worst.
In case any reader has not thought about it, women make a lot less than
men in all professions. We also are not considered for promotion or
for the better jobs within a category. I'm a bit older than most here
and recall the civil rights movements for people of color in the
fifties and for women in the seventies. Has anyone read just what
happened during the former period...especially about those who passed
as "white"? Crossdressing as a male to get or keep privilege is not
much different. In my opinion, there is no excuse for anyone
continuing to present male in the workplace when they are living as a
female otherwise. It implies that the job would or could not be held
by a woman and is simply exploitive to take advantage of the situation.
Sallyanne
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
tracy
> Sallyanne
I'm sorry, Sallyanne, but I don't agree with the tone of your
post. Your view of wowen in the workplace, while it has some
validity, feels almost as dated as Karolina's female "thinking".
While crossliving only outside of work is outside my frame of
reference, I think it's a big jump to say that it's being
done to "take advantage of the situation". Could it be that
such a person, posting to a srs group, might have something
else going on? I haven't paid much attention to Loree's
"situation", so I don't know - but your message doesn't even
mention her, so you might want to be careful about making such
blanket statements.
Tracy
--
Electric Dreams
sa_a...@my-deja.com
tracy <rt...@netcom9.netcom.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, Sallyanne, but I don't agree with the tone of your
> post. Your view of wowen in the workplace, while it has some
> validity, feels almost as dated as Karolina's female "thinking".
>
> While crossliving only outside of work is outside my frame of
> reference, I think it's a big jump to say that it's being
> done to "take advantage of the situation". Could it be that
> such a person, posting to a srs group, might have something
> else going on? I haven't paid much attention to Loree's
> "situation", so I don't know - but your message doesn't even
> mention her, so you might want to be careful about making such
> blanket statements.
>
> Tracy
>
I am very sorry, Tracy, you are assuming that my posting here refers to
only one person and have ignored the problem of those who seek or
retain jobs as male, yet want to be treated female because "I don't
want to lose my job" or whatever. Such behavior reflects male
privilege, and it is simply wrong.
I am not discussing here entry level jobs but those which provide good
compensation and carry valuable perks and opportunities. Nor am I
writing about those who hold a job in a firm which she sought
transition--that is a very different matter and carries with it its own
risks and difficulties.
You may compair my thinking to that of another who has entered here
recently, but this is not a new thought here nor is it something based
on some false image of femininity. It deals with business and the
workplace, Tracy, about which you and I have some experience.
Let me lay out for you what I mean:
1. The world of work continues to be the boy's sandbox. You have been
involved in that world, as you have written earlier; and you have
hinted at sexual discrimination. I've been working in that world as
well. It is the boy's sandbox and they don't really like girls to
play there at any level beyond helping move the sand to the place
designated by the boys.
2. If you would like to perform a small test, post your resume with a
male name and again with a female name on Monster Board or other job
search site and observe the results. If you'd like to test it further,
seek a position as a male. There is a significant difference in
response rates.
3. Even men whose presentation is less than virile are part of the
boy's club; they benefit from this; and very few men have any idea of
the depth to which such privilege extends.
4. None of this has anything to do with passing matters but with our
having to deal with the underlying sexual discrimination in the
jobplace worldwide. Nor is it meant that we should wear a hairshirt as
a mark of transition. It does mean, though, that someone who is in or
through with transition or who wants to live in role except for the
workplace needs to give some real thought to what they are doing.
Those who remain in positions in the world of work in their male role
are taking advantage of male privilege, even though many do not think
that it is so. They are mistaken. If one is a woman, one needs to
live that role, completely.
This sort of thing goes on a bit more than you would think, especially
at the higher levels of the professions, management, academia and
research.
I know of from what I speak. I've walked the walk, and I have
succeeded. And I know a few more transpersons than most who post here.
I entered this knowing full well the difficulties placed before a woman
in the workplace, and they were far more profound than I had expected.
This is not a personal complaint, I am quite content.
Those who transtion need to realize that holding or seeking a job out
of role reflects male privilege, supports discrimination against all
women and some women resent it.
sa_a...@my-deja.com
Loree Thomas <lor...@geocities.com> wrote:
> sa_a...@my-deja.com wrote:
...
> >
> > Of all the matters which are very difficult, may I suggest that
working
> > as a man and presenting as a woman in many ways is not only
insulting
> > to women as Julie states but reflects both discrimatory behavior and
> > male privilege at its worst.
>
it? I
> wonder how much "male privilege" I'm using when my resume has a
female name
> on it and I showed up for interviews presenting as female?
>
Loree, I have no complaint with you provided you do as you have written
here. On the other hand, if you seek a job, presenting male, then I
do. I really do if you hold a job as male and then want to enter
women's space after you've participated in male privilege. But you've
said you are not doing that, so how do we have a problem with one
another?
Contrary to what you have concluded, this is not "political", Loree.
It deals with male privilege in the workplace, dear, and you may be
pretty aware of its existence.
sa_a...@my-deja.com
che...@cruzio.com wrote in message
<378decb0...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 03:35:36 GMT, sa_a...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>Of all the matters which are very difficult, may I suggest that
working
>>as a man and presenting as a woman in many ways is not only insulting
>>to women as Julie states but reflects both discrimatory behavior and
>>male privilege at its worst.
>
>I assume that you are not including that time leading up to transition
>when we're building up to telling the employer but are trying to live
>as a woman in other aspects of our lives. I went through several
>months of that, until my therapist insisted that I transition at work,
>no matter what the consequences. I got terminated, _of course_ it
>wasn't for being transsexual or a faggot or anything like that, but it
>was the best decision I could have made. I've had friends who
>encountered similar situations. Ten years ago, there was very little
>protection in the workplace, and even now things haven't gotten better
>everywhere.
>
>Still, your point is well taken. I don't consider that a person is
>living as a woman until she is living fulltime 24x7, no exceptions and
>no vacations, in every aspect of her life. Some may find that
>uncompromising, but that's the way it is. It 's supposed to be
>uncompromising. I didn't begin to understand what it means to be a
>woman until I cut the safety net, and lived under the parameters that
>other women do. I left a $50k a year job to work as a waitress, and
>in doing so found that other women accepted me as one of them. It was
>worth it. Until a person is living as a woman in every aspect of her
>life, it's still crossdressing.
>
>While I wouldn't put any moral judgment on anyone still working as a
>male, she is not living as a woman until she does so completely. You
>just can't be a woman part-time.
We are in complete agreement on all of this, Cheryl.
Certainly, the person whose life is represented by the walking a very
thin tightrope as she tries to maintain her income as she enters
transition needs all the support and help from those of us who have
experienced life 24/7 can provide. It is not an easy task, and many of
us have written here and elsewhere about it.
This has little to do with moral judgements made toward others. It does
point out that there are those who would have it both ways, and those
who benefit from such behavior should not expect inclusive treatment.
Sallyanne
sa_a...@my-deja.com
Michelle Steiner wrote in message
<060719992123198143%mich...@michelle.org>...
>> continuing to present male in the workplace when they are living as a
>> female otherwise. It implies that the job would or could not be held
situation.
>
>In general, I agree, but so many of us go through a period like this
>before going full time. I realize that you don't mean them, but mean
>those who have no intention of going full time, and choose to live as
>women and work as men indefinitely.
>
>--Michelle
>
You are correct, Michelle. Those entering transition need all the help
we
can offer. Transition in place involves, as those here who have such
experience can attest, a universe of difficulties and needs a good deal
of
planning, nerve and plain luck to execute it successfully.
We need to remember, too, that our transition in place likely will be a
transit event as many will change jobs, voluntarily or not, within a
year
or two following their transition. How many do you and I know who have
done
that? More than half, I would suggest.
sa_a...@my-deja.com
sa_a...@my-deja.com wrote:
Michelle Steiner wrote in message <070719990833530346%
mich...@michelle.org>...
>In article <7lvln2$cvv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sa_a...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
>> We need to remember, too, that our transition in place likely will be
>> a transit event as many will change jobs, voluntarily or not, within
>> a year or two following their transition. How many do you and I know
>> who have done that? More than half, I would suggest.
>
>around here is three years. This industry has a highly volatile job
>market.
>
>--Michelle
>
That was not meant as a criticism, Michelle, nor was it aimed at those
who have transitioned in place and continue at risk. In fact many
people change jobs for many reasons. Sometimes it is a result of
exogenous factors, sometimes, as Cheryl so clearly describes, of
others. Sometimes it occurs when the transitioning person notifies
h/his employer and sometimes it occurs at a later time. Were one to do
a search on the subject here or its predecessor or elsewhere, one could
find ample examples of job changes following transition.
I don't want to get into this in an open forum, but I think you and I
can come up with some examples all along the continuum of the
employment condition.
The matter I was hoping to open is that of those who continue working
in their male persona and expecting to be accepted into women's space.
Maybe this is the place to discuss the matter of transition and jobs
and the universe of the effects which occur when we transition.
Perhaps it belongs in another thread.
Seven
<sa_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7lvja8$c15$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> 2. If you would like to perform a small test, post your resume with a
> male name and again with a female name on Monster Board or other job
> search site and observe the results. If you'd like to test it further,
> seek a position as a male. There is a significant difference in
> response rates.
Have you actually done this Sally? I ask because I have, and have found
that what you wrote doesn't hold true for me. I had been offered several
interviews in high paying job, and my gender didn't seem to be a
consideration that I could tell. Perhaps companies in the internet and
programming fields are more progressive? I don't know that my experience is
consistent through all industries - but I can say I was happy with the
quality of interest in advertising on monster.com and other places.
sa_a...@my-deja.com
Actually, dear I have, as have others of my acqaintance. I've chosen
to remain in my self employed business but did want to test the matter,
so I responded to several opportunities with my resume under both
gender names. The femail was ignored; the male had numerous replies.
It involved senior managment positions. I've discussed such lack of
response with other women of my age and credentials, and they affirm
similar results.
Your experience is heartening, but it may also be limited to a
currently short supply of skills. There have been times in my adult
lifetime when such shortages have been very acute, driving up the
demand for a specific skill regardless of the person's gender.
One also has to acknowledge that conditions today are worlds different
from the seventies or sixties. Those with technical and management
credentials during those times often went a very long time between
appropriate jobs.
Let me share with those here an anecdote. I've a business friend whom
I've known since 1972. He owns and operates his own niche advertising
agencey in the Northeast, and I've helped him a few times and used his
agency twice as my agency of record. After we had discussed my
transiton over a series of phone calls and his meeting me in a trade
show we both attended, he made an interesting comment: "I guess you
don't mind losing a lot of income, so this must be very important to
you."
He is correct. When I transtioned, I guaranteed a lower paying scale
of employability for myself simply because women are not paid the same
as men for the same work and because women accept it. This did and
does not bother me too much, but it has placed limitations in some
aspets of my business career.
I would like, too, to advise those lurking here, that none of this
means one becomes immediately unemployable upon transition. It can
become more limiting, however. But we don't transition to make more
money or gain prestige, either. We should, though, realize that when
we transition, we limit our earning potential and are placed in a very
different category by those for whom we work.
tracy
> 2. If you would like to perform a small test, post your resume with a
> male name and again with a female name on Monster Board or other job
> search site and observe the results. If you'd like to test it further,
> seek a position as a male. There is a significant difference in
> response rates.
> 3. Even men whose presentation is less than virile are part of the
> boy's club; they benefit from this; and very few men have any idea of
> the depth to which such privilege extends.
> 4. None of this has anything to do with passing matters but with our
> having to deal with the underlying sexual discrimination in the
> jobplace worldwide. Nor is it meant that we should wear a hairshirt as
> a mark of transition. It does mean, though, that someone who is in or
> through with transition or who wants to live in role except for the
> workplace needs to give some real thought to what they are doing.
> Those who remain in positions in the world of work in their male role
> are taking advantage of male privilege, even though many do not think
> that it is so. They are mistaken. If one is a woman, one needs to
> live that role, completely.
> This sort of thing goes on a bit more than you would think, especially
> at the higher levels of the professions, management, academia and
> research.
> I know of from what I speak. I've walked the walk, and I have
> succeeded. And I know a few more transpersons than most who post here.
> I entered this knowing full well the difficulties placed before a woman
> in the workplace, and they were far more profound than I had expected.
> This is not a personal complaint, I am quite content.
> Those who transtion need to realize that holding or seeking a job out
> of role reflects male privilege, supports discrimination against all
> women and some women resent it.
> Sallyanne
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hi Sallyanne,
I know the main area of concern in this thread isn't *really*
women and the workplace, but we've touched on this before,
and there's something I want to say.
First of all, I understand and respect your viewpoint - I just
think things aren't as bleak as the picture you paint. Obviously,
there are still inequalities, but we've made alot of progress, and
women have been well represented in middle management for a
number of years. I think one important occurence of the 90's,
has been the number of women, after rising through the ranks,
and hitting the glass ceiling, who have the resources and clout
to leave and start their own company - and I don't mean mom-and-pop
stuff, but major players.
And why is this important to *us*? Two reasons: as we begin to
interact with the other women in the workplace, we must not
discount the hard work of those women who (in many cases) have
paved the way for us. To do so would be close to a kind of
male privilege - just as men are often blind to the inequalities,
they are often blind to the victories. Secondly, I think we need
to consider the possbility that discrimination we are attributing
to being women, may in fact be because of our ts history.
It can be a little less ego deflating to think our problems are
just those of any woman. I've never been an activist about
*anything*, but I see the need for *our* protection against
job discrimination. I've been blessed by genetics, luck, whatever,
and have had it pretty easy, but I know others have had problems,
and I'd like to see that get some attention.
- Tracy
-
Electric Dreams
Karen Elizabeth A.
> He is correct. When I transtioned, I guaranteed a lower paying scale
> of employability for myself simply because women are not paid the same
> as men for the same work and because women accept it. This did and
> does not bother me too much, but it has placed limitations in some
> aspets of my business career.
My experience here is atypical as well. I transitioned on the job and a
year later was promoted from idividual contributor to middle management.
I lost that position because of a number of circumstances, including my
lack of management experience, things going wrong with a contact
manufacturer that were outside my control, and a because a couple of my
direct reports had some real problems with me - partly related to being
TS and partly due to personality differences that i did not know how to
deal with (it becomes difficult to separate the two issues).
Point is I was given a huge promotion inspite of transition because they
recognized my intelletual ability and willingness to work hard.
Now the CEO of the company is a younger woman (30's) who came out of
venture capital arena and that may be why it could happen... another
thing is at 44, I'm one of the oldest employees in the company...
I think what you have to say Sallyanne, applies more strongly to older
companies then new ones. The world is indeed changing and newer cultures
are springing up in newer companies.
-Karen A.
Seven
news:7m06i1$r...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com...
> And why is this important to *us*? Two reasons: as we begin to
> interact with the other women in the workplace, we must not
> discount the hard work of those women who (in many cases) have
> paved the way for us. To do so would be close to a kind of
> male privilege - just as men are often blind to the inequalities,
> they are often blind to the victories. Secondly, I think we need
> to consider the possbility that discrimination we are attributing
> to being women, may in fact be because of our ts history.
> It can be a little less ego deflating to think our problems are
> just those of any woman. I've never been an activist about
> *anything*, but I see the need for *our* protection against
> job discrimination. I've been blessed by genetics, luck, whatever,
> and have had it pretty easy, but I know others have had problems,
> and I'd like to see that get some attention.
> - Tracy
I think you make some excellent points, Tracy. It's been 2 years since I
was directly an employee of a company, however many of that company's (5000
employees, not small by any means) senior management were women. Since that
time I have done contract short term work for a number of other companies,
and see many women in real power positions. I think there have been
tremendous strides in the workplace, at least in the US.
At the same time, and seemingly speaking from both sides of my mouth, I
won't discount what Sally Anne says - I have heard too many stories of
continued limitations. Much success abound and still more to go before true
equality is in effect and a regular function of "the system".
But what you said about TS limits playing a role, this may well be true.
It's so much less painful to think that could be a factor, but I know that
when I was part of the aforementioned 5000+ corporate structure, I had
wanted to move into a more technical area. I was well qualified for the
position, was already in fact doing part of what I would have been doing in
that area. But my requests were turned down. I never knew why, for sure -
just that there were other people hired from outside the company who didn't
know the system as well as I. Eventually, I tired of that and bailed on
them, their 401k, the petty backstabbing, and all the security I could have
had to this day.
Seven
.
>
> Let's ignore the fact that a gay man is lower on the hetero sexist (read
> "mainstream") totem pole than any woman, and a transgendered person is
lower
> still.
I don't know that this is true, Loree. I had heard that gay males are among
the richest of demographically categorized couples.
Seven
<sa_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7m0ad7$m9q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Actually, dear I have, as have others of my acqaintance. I've chosen
> to remain in my self employed business but did want to test the matter,
> so I responded to several opportunities with my resume under both
> gender names. The femail was ignored; the male had numerous replies.
> It involved senior managment positions. I've discussed such lack of
> response with other women of my age and credentials, and they affirm
> similar results.
Hmm, well I didn't post a male test copy, but was happy with the results.
You may be right about the reasons.
> Your experience is heartening, but it may also be limited to a
> currently short supply of skills. There have been times in my adult
> lifetime when such shortages have been very acute, driving up the
> demand for a specific skill regardless of the person's gender.
>
> One also has to acknowledge that conditions today are worlds different
> from the seventies or sixties. Those with technical and management
> credentials during those times often went a very long time between
> appropriate jobs.
>
> Let me share with those here an anecdote. I've a business friend whom
> I've known since 1972. He owns and operates his own niche advertising
> agencey in the Northeast, and I've helped him a few times and used his
> agency twice as my agency of record. After we had discussed my
> transiton over a series of phone calls and his meeting me in a trade
> show we both attended, he made an interesting comment: "I guess you
> don't mind losing a lot of income, so this must be very important to
> you."
>
> He is correct. When I transtioned, I guaranteed a lower paying scale
> of employability for myself simply because women are not paid the same
> as men for the same work and because women accept it. This did and
> does not bother me too much, but it has placed limitations in some
> aspets of my business career.
My rates actually went up when I transitioned. I was entry-level at the
time, however, so my experience doesn't apply to what you are saying.
Of course, I am at a weird point in my life right now, as you may have
heard - so it throws all new variables into my thinking.
Seven
news:070719991824182903%mich...@michelle.org...
> In article <7m0ad7$m9q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sa_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like, too, to advise those lurking here, that none of this
> > means one becomes immediately unemployable upon transition. It can
> > become more limiting, however. But we don't transition to make more
> > money or gain prestige, either. We should, though, realize that when
> > we transition, we limit our earning potential and are placed in a very
> > different category by those for whom we work.
>
> is almost nil in the web design and other graphics arts fields; is very
> small to nil in software quality assurance, and small to very small in
> software engineering. As one moves up the management ladder, though,
> then the differences increase.
>
> What's that old saying from the 70s? Oh yes, "To get as much money,
> power and recognition as a man, a woman has to work twice as hard.
> Fortunately, this is not very difficult." <wry smile>
LOL - good line! It appears that only men we have to seriously give
competitive credence to are our F2M brothers - they work as hard as a woman,
from previous experiences - but have that dashing boyish charm.
Seven
news:01bec8fe$2fb43460$0732180c@hamiltonlabs...
> Diane <notr...@earthlink.com> wrote:
> > I would pretty much second that. I've used the internet for four
> > years now to generate consulting contracts. I have a very high
> > response rate. No problem getting jobs or contracts here.
>
> You found that resume Celeste put together for you really helped?
Oh she's funny! You're quite the wit tonight> ! ;-)
Loree Thomas
Completely different thing.. but ok let's look at that. It certainly SEEMS
like it should be true... Two males, sharing expenses with no kids to worry
about. Yup, should be plenty of disposable income (which is what the
demographics you are referring to were measuring... not actual wealth).
If you look closer, it tends to break down, however. Gay folk are
marginalized in this country. Upper level management jobs are even harder
to come by if you are openly gay than if you are female. There is another
"glass ceiling" below the famous one... and it has a lavender tint.
Gays tend to live in urban environments where the cost of living is high.
They also tend to be in the lower paying service industry rather than in
business, manufacturing and technical fields. This doesn't mean that there
aren't any openly gay upper management types... just that they are even
rarer (proportionately) than females.
Are stealth TSs underrepresented in upper levels? Who knows... after all
they ARE stealth. Seems to me they'd have close to the same ratio as other
women.
I don't think you could make the same case for openly TS/TG folk, however.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain intelligently (as opposed to merely
asserting) how being openly TG in the workplace could be considered
"retaining male privilege". Too many people have lost too many jobs for me
to believe that particular line.
YMMV
Hugs,
Loree
~mme
> What's that old saying from the 70s? Oh yes, "To get as much money,
> power and recognition as a man, a woman has to work twice as hard.
> Fortunately, this is not very difficult." <wry smile>
due to fluctuating down joneses and what else is new, you can safely
multiply this equation by (at least) five. even when you're not into the
power thang.
--
'trisha
(smiling, sort of)
tracy
> In article <7m0ad7$m9q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sa_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> I would like, too, to advise those lurking here, that none of this
>> means one becomes immediately unemployable upon transition. It can
>> become more limiting, however. But we don't transition to make more
>> money or gain prestige, either. We should, though, realize that when
>> we transition, we limit our earning potential and are placed in a very
>> different category by those for whom we work.
> A lot depends on one's profession. I think that the gender difference
> is almost nil in the web design and other graphics arts fields; is very
> small to nil in software quality assurance, and small to very small in
> software engineering. As one moves up the management ladder, though,
> then the differences increase.
> What's that old saying from the 70s? Oh yes, "To get as much money,
> power and recognition as a man, a woman has to work twice as hard.
> Fortunately, this is not very difficult." <wry smile>
> --Michelle
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Michelle Steiner | "An it harm none, do as thou will. |
> | mich...@michelle.org | That is the whole of the law." |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the application development work I do is of the
"executive decision support" variety, which means that the
finished application requires little more than clicking on
icons to get dynamic reports. In the last year I've worked
at a dog food testing center in Kansas, a major credit card
company in Phoenix, another major credit card company in Dallas,
a health care company in San Diego, two major banks in
San Francisco, and a major insurance company north of
San Francisco, and others. The people in those companies
that I work with hold mid to high level positions - and are
generally not in IT or DP roles. I'd say it's been about
60/40 men to women. I often have some contact with the CEO
during my work, and they have all been men. And I think
I'll leave it at that.
Tracy
rarely
--
--
Electric Dreams
Diane
wrote:
>
>Have you actually done this Sally? I ask because I have, and have found
>that what you wrote doesn't hold true for me.
I would pretty much second that. I've used the internet for four
years now to generate consulting contracts. I have a very high
response rate. No problem getting jobs or contracts here.
------------------------------------
Diane
tracy
> In article <7m104e$e...@dfw-ixnews13.ix.netcom.com>,
> tracy <rt...@netcom15.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>> > A lot depends on one's profession. I think that the gender
> difference
>> > is almost nil in the web design and other graphics arts fields; is
> very
>> > small to nil in software quality assurance, and small to very small
> in
>> > software engineering. As one moves up the management ladder,
> though,
>> > then the differences increase.
> <snip!>
>> Much of the application development work I do is of the
>> "executive decision support" variety, which means that the
>> finished application requires little more than clicking on
>> icons to get dynamic reports. In the last year I've worked
>> at a dog food testing center in Kansas, a major credit card
>> company in Phoenix, another major credit card company in Dallas,
>> a health care company in San Diego, two major banks in
>> San Francisco, and a major insurance company north of
>> San Francisco, and others. The people in those companies
>> that I work with hold mid to high level positions - and are
>> generally not in IT or DP roles. I'd say it's been about
>> 60/40 men to women. I often have some contact with the CEO
>> during my work, and they have all been men. And I think
>> I'll leave it at that.
> I wonder how much this has to do with the type of work and the
> average salaries in those fields. Most of the OS internals
> programmers I know are men. Probably on the order of 10 to 1
> or so. The last time I checked salaries for OS hacks were well
> above those for application programmers. If there is a scarcity
> of women in the higher-paying fields of the computer biz, this
> strikes me as the same "skimming the cream off the top" that
> happens in other fields, such as accounting, where there are
> plenty of men and women, just that the CPA's and full-partners
> are men, while the clerks and junior partners are women ...
> -- Julie.
There are *obviously* inequities - what I was trying to point
out is that there are *opportunities* out there - all this
gloom-and-doom stuff just isn't accurate - y'all just need
to get out more. I imagine internals programmers do make
more than application programmers - but who the heck wants
to be an internals programmer :). The thing I like about
my job is the people contact - I'd go crazy locked away in
some cubicle.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
--
Electric Dreams
Nicole Hamilton
> I would pretty much second that. I've used the internet for four
> years now to generate consulting contracts. I have a very high
> response rate. No problem getting jobs or contracts here.
You found that resume Celeste put together for you really helped?
Nicki
KarenA1013
<<
You found that resume Celeste put together for you really helped?
>>
Nicki,
You certainly still have "balls" ! ;-)
- Karen A. (ROTFLMAO!!!!)
Diane
>You found that >resume Celeste put together for you really helped?
I got two positive call backs from it and an offer of dinner actually.
Go figure...
------------------------------------
Diane
Diane
<lor...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Gays tend to live in urban environments where the cost of living is high.
>They also tend to be in the lower paying service industry rather than in
>business, manufacturing and technical fields. This doesn't mean that there
>aren't any openly gay upper management types... just that they are even
>rarer (proportionately) than females.
Oh! You must have been taking lessons from our old friend Johanna
Bradely! If you don't have the facts at hand then just make 'em up!
I won't even ask you for the sources of your information because I
suspect that "personal observation" would be the answer.
in actuality gay couples have one of the highest overall income levels
of all sectors of society and are a highly sought after market by many
businesses.
>I'm still waiting for someone to explain intelligently (as opposed to merely
>asserting) how being openly TG in the workplace could be considered
>"retaining male privilege".
If by "intelligently" you mean an explanation which makes sense to you
personally I am afraid that I will never be able to provide such but
for all others I am sure it is obvious that women are discriminated
against in the work place and a TG who works as a male and then does
his femme thing at home is obviously taking advantage of this fact fir
his own personal advantage.
I actually have no problems with this as I would rather him do his
thing in the privacy of his own home rather then in embarrassing work
situations.
------------------------------------
Diane
Loree Thomas
cited reference also choose not to cite any either.
In fact the only reference cited was The Advocate study... which most people
interested in gay issues already knew was flawed.
Any way... here's a small sample of what I based my opinion on:
"27% lower wages were paid to gay and bisexual men than to heterosexual
men."
National random poll, controlling for education, occupation, race,
experience & region, Lee Badgett, "Industrial and Labor Relations
Review" (July, '95).
..."For example, a 1987 Wall Street Journal poll of Fortune 500 executives
showed 66% would hesitate to give a management job to a lesbian or a gay
man."...
"It also appears from the best evidence available today that employment
discrimination takes a toll at the most basic level: income.
Although opponents of civil rights claim that lesbians and gay men are well
heeled, the only thing close to a representative survey suggests that
lesbians and gay men generally earn less than their heterosexual
counterparts."
http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/endatest.html
And I've got a ton more...
The truth is that it isn't "MALE privilege"... It's "White, Well Educated,
Straight Male privilege".
A black man has no "male privilege" in corporate america. Neither does a
gay man or any type or kind of known trans person.
It's REALLY strange that the people with the same opinions as expressed by
most in this newsgroup are the religious right and other political
conservatives.
Why is that?
Hugs.
Loree
Loree Thomas
>
> In article <37857AA7...@geocities.com>, Loree Thomas
> <lor...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > The truth is that it isn't "MALE privilege"... It's "White, Well Educated,
> > Straight Male privilege".
> >
> > A black man has no "male privilege" in corporate america.
>
> say that it depends on what part of the country you're in.
Look at national statistics. White women earn more than black men. Black
women earn more than black men (black women are less of a threat to the
dominate culture).
Of course there are variations within companies and regions. So? It's the
trend, the overall view, the "Big Picture" that counts.
> > Neither does a gay man or any type or kind of known trans person.
>
> I assume that you mean a "known gay man." Again, it depends on where
> you are in the country. If you're in Silicon Valley or San Francisco,
> being gay isn't a hindrance. The chief counsel of Claris Corporation,
> who then became the chief litigator for Apple Computers is now the
> Executive Director of the HRC.
I guarentee you he's not there because of "male priviledge".
> The senior attorney of the Newton Division of Apple was an out (but not
> in your face out) TS; she would have become the corporate counsel for
> Newton, Inc., had Steve Jobs not prevented that spin off from
> happening.
Again, that was in spite of, not because of "male priveledge".
> The only thing else I'll add right now is that whatever generality
> anyone wants to make about TSs, TGs, or gays in the workplace, it's
> wrong.
Thanks for that brilliant contribution to this discussion. "All
generalities are wrong." Sheesh.
I fail to see the relevance to the dicussion at hand. We are talking about
"male priviledge".
A single example... or even a string of examples of highly placed out gays,
black men, out TGs and out transsexuals doesn't disprove the contention that
those people do not have the advantage of "male priviledge".
I'm sure that quoting statistics about how much women earn compared to men
or how few woman there are in top level management positions wouldn't spark
you to post about female CEOs.
The truth is that the exceptions don't matter. In fact they just emphasize
how bad it is because they ARE exceptional. What isn't exceptional is the
preponderance of straight white males in upper level management positions.
What also isn't exceptional is that straight white males earn more than gay
white males. They earn more than any other identifiable demographic.
"Male priviledge" isn't for all men. It's only for straight, white men.
My goodness people... According to your views (with one or two exceptions)
as expressed in this thread there is no need for ENDA or any other anti
workplace discrimination legislation except that which protects women. Do
you truly believe that or is it just you can't allow that I, Loree Thomas,
might actually be correct once in a while?
Loree
Michelle Steiner
<lor...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > But who is lower on the totem pole, a white woman or a black man? I'd
> > say that it depends on what part of the country you're in.
>
> Look at national statistics. White women earn more than black men.
I don't think that anyone would argue with that.
> Black women earn more than black men (black women are less of a
> threat to the dominate culture).
I'd like to see stats to back that one up.
> > > Neither does a gay man or any type or kind of known trans person.
> >
> > I assume that you mean a "known gay man." Again, it depends on where
> > you are in the country. If you're in Silicon Valley or San Francisco,
> > being gay isn't a hindrance. The chief counsel of Claris Corporation,
> > who then became the chief litigator for Apple Computers is now the
> > Executive Director of the HRC.
>
> I guarentee you he's not there because of "male priviledge".
I am 100% certain that *she* doesn't have one bit of male privelege.
> > The senior attorney of the Newton Division of Apple was an out (but not
> > in your face out) TS; she would have become the corporate counsel for
> > Newton, Inc., had Steve Jobs not prevented that spin off from
> > happening.
>
> Again, that was in spite of, not because of "male priveledge".
It was male privilege that got her the law degree and the experience to
land the job. But she was hired despite her being a woman and a
TS--although I don't know whether they knew she was TS, but it was very
easy for them to find out if she had been.
> > The only thing else I'll add right now is that whatever generality
> > anyone wants to make about TSs, TGs, or gays in the workplace, it's
> > wrong.
>
> Thanks for that brilliant contribution to this discussion. "All
> generalities are wrong." Sheesh.
>
> I fail to see the relevance to the dicussion at hand. We are talking
> about "male priviledge".
Among other things. The relevance is that your generalities are just
as wrong as Julie's, Diane's, and Cheryl's.
> A single example... or even a string of examples of highly placed out
> gays, black men, out TGs and out transsexuals doesn't disprove the
> contention that those people do not have the advantage of "male
> priviledge".
Nor do your examples prove that they don't.
> I'm sure that quoting statistics about how much women earn compared
> to men or how few woman there are in top level management positions
> wouldn't spark you to post about female CEOs.
If the person quoting the statistics were to use them to contend that
women CEOs are very rare, I would, because although they are rare, they
are not very rare.
> The truth is that the exceptions don't matter. In fact they just
> emphasize how bad it is because they ARE exceptional. What isn't
> exceptional is the preponderance of straight white males in upper
> level management positions.
I don't think that anyone is contesting that.
> What also isn't exceptional is that straight white males earn more
> than gay white males. They earn more than any other identifiable
> demographic.
That has yet to be demonstrated here, nor has there been pointers to
where it has been demonstrated. The opposite hasn't been demonstrated
either, though.
> "Male priviledge" isn't for all men. It's only for straight, white men.
That is not true. Within an ethnic group, male privelege exists, as
Julie, Diane, and/or Cheryl have explained.
> My goodness people... According to your views (with one or two
> exceptions) as expressed in this thread there is no need for ENDA or
> any other anti workplace discrimination legislation except that which
> protects women.
I suggest then, that you don't understand those views.
> Do you truly believe that or is it just you can't allow that I, Loree
> Thomas, might actually be correct once in a while?
Neither.
Michelle Steiner
<no...@nowhere.nodomain> wrote:
> > But who is lower on the totem pole, a white woman or a black man? I'd
> > say that it depends on what part of the country you're in.
>
> That's apples and oranges, Michelle. To be a reasonable comparision
> you'd have to compare black men to black women. Otherwise some
> other form of privilege -- racial privilege -- comes into play.
I know; that was my point.
> > I assume that you mean a "known gay man." Again, it depends on where
> > you are in the country. If you're in Silicon Valley or San Francisco,
> > being gay isn't a hindrance. The chief counsel of Claris Corporation,
> > who then became the chief litigator for Apple Computers is now the
> > Executive Director of the HRC.
>
> I've really been surprised at how many gays and lesbians I know
> aren't "out" all that much. I was picking up my new gay and lesbian
> employee group t-shirt. I mentioned the L-word outloud in this
> friends office and he told me to be quiet -- he didn't want the people
> in the offices around him knowing he's gay.
I assure you; Elizabeth wasn't closeted. She didn't wear an Avengers
tee shirt to work, mind you, but it was no secret.
> I met a new employee recently and within a few seconds figured he
> was gay. He majorly pinged my gaydar. We chatted about his
> social interests, etc. and I kept noticing that he was very evasive.
> So ... I asked him. Yup, he's gay. I did everything while we were
> talking except say "Well, I'm a lesbian, so if you're gay you might
> as well just tell me 'cuz I'm okay with it."
<g> After I got home from work my first day on this new job, I saw the
name of a co-worker on the BA-sappho mailing list. I replied (off
list) to her, saying, "Now I know why your name seemed so familiar at
work today," and she replied, "I was trying to figure out the same
about yours." She didn't set off my gaydar, though; for some reason,
femmes rarely do. There's another woman there who, even if she had not
had two AIDS Walk buttons pinned to the outside of her cube, set off my
gaydar big time as soon as I saw her.
Speaking of work, I wonder how long it's going to take for me to be
outed. So far, I've seen on campus two people I know from Claris, plus
I know that there's at least one more, and one person who knew me when
I was in Mensa. Only one of the Claris people has seen me so far, but
she didn't show any signs of recognition; I think she left the company
a year or two before I transitioned.
--Michelle
Vanderven
(Diane) writes:
>in actuality gay couples have one of the highest overall income levels
>of all sectors of society and are a highly sought after market by many
>businesses.
The HRC once did some research and found gays to be earning slightly less then
average. The image of the wealthy queers was picked up by the gay community to
exploit the power of the "pink dollar", and gain political influence. The
result have been limited to a lot more inclusive advertising by firms like
IKEA. Also most gay guys I know live are single and get few tax breaks and are
the facto subsidizing straight families.
I there is a lot to say for Lorree's point that "out" TGs and TSs who work as
women may be more discriminated against then TSs who are stealth. Of course
women often do get sexist treatment, less pay and less promotion. But I have
heard a lot of "out" TG/TS's say that their employers and co-workers felt like
saints for merely employing and tollerating them. It didn't seem they were not
going to give them any more perks or priviledges then minimal tollerance. Also
some non-op's complained that they could not get identity papers in their
presenting sex, which made applying for a job +very+ awkward. So I do not know
who is worse off.
Arianne
tracy
> In article <19990708214744...@ngol01.aol.com>, Vanderven
> <vand...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Also most gay guys I know live are single and get few tax breaks and are
>> the facto subsidizing straight families.
> Um, a married couple quite often winds up paying higher income tax than
> they would if they could file as two single people. The exception is
> when one partner doesn't work.
> --Michelle
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Michelle Steiner | "An it harm none, do as thou will. |
> | mich...@michelle.org | That is the whole of the law." |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would a gay couple be any more likely to be well off than
other dink couples (that's double income, no kids, for the unknowing)?
Probably some gay men couples get the benefit of double male privilege -
but would there be big numbers in that category?
As someone else said, I think ad agencies just consider this
to be an untapped, high-consumption demographic.
Tracy.
--
--
Electric Dreams
Karen Elizabeth A.
> A person who is openly TG has no real understanding what it's like to
> live as a woman. I don't want to seem judgmental, but she's just not
> given the opportunity. Even someone who is openly TS walks a fine
> line sometimes. Tolerance is all well and good, but there's a
> difference between toleration and acceptance, and if you don't know
> the difference, you ain't there. Women simply will not accept one as
> another woman if they perceive her as other than they are.
Unfortunately there is a ring of truth to that. How i get treated by the
women at work (even though treated well) is noticeably different from
the times I've been with women that did not know. The feel is very
different - though I would have a hard time saying why.
-Karen A.
What I
> require is acceptance as a woman, and if the price for that is
> stealth, well, so be it.
grrl@petal
>IKEA. Also most gay guys I know live are single and get few tax breaks and are
>the facto subsidizing straight families.
You don't have to be anti reproduction to be a queer, Arianne.
Children cost money, especially if you're raising them properly.
Deductions for dependents are there to make life a bit easier for the
breadwinners of the family. These deductions aren't tax breaks.
They allow more money to be spent to raise families. I doubt thhe
average married couple with children can suddenly afford a Mercedes
because they get a deduction for having dependents to feed, clothe and
shelter. Although they may want to buy the kids furniture at IKEA.
Cindy
Diane
<lor...@geocities.com> wrote:
>A black man has no "male privilege" in corporate america. Neither does a
>gay man or any type or kind of known trans person.
What rot! Of course black men in corporate America have higher
salaries and occupy an unequal share of upper level management
positions when compared to Black woman.
Geez - if you're gonna make something up at least put some effort into
it.
------------------------------------
Diane
Loree Thomas
> Loree wrote
> > I don't think you could make the same case for openly TS/TG folk,
> > however.
> "It depends". TG and TS are not the same thing. I'm somewhat
> open (more in a sec) and I have no problems with jobs or job offers.
> But what is getting me those offers, and for the most part propping
> up my current rep, is the years I spent living as a man.
WOW!!! Thank you Julie!
Did anyone else notice that Julie just showed that people who transition in
place can reap some of the benefits of "male privilege"?
That she herself is doing what she accuses me of (with zero proof to back up
that accusation, I might add)?
Sorry Julie... You can't generalize from a specific case. Further more,
all you've shown is how YOU personally have benefited from "male privilege"
by transitioning in place. Your experience has no light to shed on the
problems suffered and treatment received by an out TG/TS looking for work or
in a new job.
> There are types of male privilege that you get given and types
> you take. My experience is that people correct you, usually by saying
> you are "overly bossy" or "aggressive" or "too assertive" if you try
> to "take" your male privilege. The choice becomes one between passing
> and taking your privilege. If you are =openly= "TG", the choice has
> already been made -- screw passing, you're going to take the
> privileges. People will fill in the "but she's really just a man in
> a dress" and grant you the perqs of being a male.
That has not been my experience.
Let me share my experience:
I applied for the job as a woman. I was hired as a woman. I go to work as
a woman. All of the people at work know I was born male. None of them know
(or even care, apparently) whether or not I still have a penis. The male
supervisors treat me as if I'm stupid (the same way they treat other
women). They talk down to me and dismiss any idea or suggestion I have.
The women treat me like they treat each other.
A supervisory position became available. I applied. I was over qualified
for the position. A less qualified man got the position... though they did
create a new (lower) position for me (working directly under him) and gave
me a raise that was "almost" (their word, not mine) as much as the
supervisory position paid. Turns out he's a little slow on the uptake and
not very good with people, so I end up covering his ass for him and doing
most of his job anyway. Nothing very new or startling about that. It's
happened to women over and over.
Julie... you are REALLY lousy at reading between the lines. You let your
personal bias get in the way almost every time.
You should quit while you're behind. But you won't.
I WILL quit... the thread is yours.
Ready...
FIRE!
(aim?????)
<Grins>
Loree
Michelle Steiner
<no...@nowhere.nodomain> wrote:
> Well, we'd have to have a lesbian community here for me to recognize
> women's names on mailing lists from work ;-( The last lesbian group
> broke up about two years ago. We =finally= have a lesbian coffee
> house, though as little business as they do I'm worried they will close
> in a few months the same way every other lesbian-oriented business
> has closed ...
<sigh> BA Sappho is an announcement and request (e.g., "Does anyone
know of a good womyn-owned auto body shop in the East Bay?) list; no
discussions are allowed. (Responses to the requests are supposed to go
off list, and the requester is encouraged to compile the replies and
post the compilation to the list.)
There's also a BA Cyberdykes list for discussion and the like, but it's
so flame ridden that many of us have given up on it.
> When I started reading this I thought you were talking about as being
> a lesbian ...
<smile> I don't mind being out as one, although I'd correct people
(when necessary) about my being bi and not lesbian. This company,
progressive as it is, does not have any employee's associations. I'm a
contractor there, so I'm not about to try to organize one--besides, I'm
not the organizer type anyway.
> I've been chatting with the new gay co-worker. I'm wondering how
> long it's going to take for one of the "helpful guys" to out me to him
> to protect him from becoming interested in a woman who used to be
> a man ...
<sigh> Protect him from what? A predatory lesbian who is a fag hag?
(I know that you're not either predatory or a fag hag, but I can't
think of any other reason he would appear to need protection.)
--Michelle
<-|spunky|+>
> But who is lower on the totem pole, a white woman or a black man?
Well I worked for 5 1/2 years at a major oil company and the top 2 floors
had one black man and no women. The top woman exec was way down (13 floors
to be exact) in Human Resources. It was easy to figure out the top women
execs because there were so few of them.
> I'd say that it depends on what part of the country you're in.
This was Houston.
As someone who has worked stealth from day one, I feel I can say for
certain that gender beats race in most fields. Except perhaps in the
sciences.
spunky
**
And the mirror, it reflects a tiny dancin' skeleton
Surrounded by a fleshy overcoat and swaddled in
A furry hat, elastic mask, a pair of shiny marble dice
Some people call them snake eyes, but to me they look like mice
--
For info about this service, see http://www.twwells.com/anon/ or e-mail:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
Michelle Steiner
> Well, I wasn't nearly as open when I was going thru my "Maybe I'm
> bi?" phase, but mostly because I was having trouble getting that
> identity to "stick". When your boyfriend tells you he's worried
> you're going to leave him for another woman, and the thought crosses
> your mind that he has reason to believe that (and the converse doesn't
> happen with you and your girlfriend ...), well, it was hard for me
> to hold "I am bisexual" in my head for all that long.
Well, so far all my relationships have been with women (TS and non-T*);
I say that I'm bisexual based on attractions. Unfortunately, all but
one of the men I've been attracted to are not available--and that one
is a better friend than potential romantic partner for me; there just
isn't any chemistry. There is chemistry between him and Sharon,
though, interestingly enough.
> Well, I am a bit of a fag hag ;-) I made friends with an
> intersexual recently who is often the target of lesbian lust.
> Since he's a gay man this has been known to be a problem for
> him ...
Interesting. I wonder why he's so attractive to lesbians.
> No, those bozos just =assume= that I'm out to fool men everywhere
> and this guy isn't "out", so the bozos probably assume I'm going
> to cast my evil spell on him as well ...
And recruit him to be a trannie? <g>
--Michelle
Michelle Steiner
> Never said I wasn't attracted to the little critters, but just not
> enough to make up for being far more attracted to women. For me I
> just had to have more than an attraction. They couldn't keep my
> attention (for lack of a better word at the moment).
I find my attraction to men is about the same as to women. I'll know
for sure whether I'm bi as soon as I get in a relationship with a man.
> Hmmm. I'm friends with a couple of guys who were "told". I'll
> have to find out what they actually say about me behind my back ...
Good luck.
--Michelle
Michelle Steiner
> When I lived as a guy I was very outspoken about women's issues,
> to the point that many men thought I was a traitor of sorts and
> women knew they could count on me as an ally. How I was treated
> by women during =that= time is very close to how I'm treated by
> women who know of my past. I'm an honorary woman, a member of the
> team, a convert to the cause. But I'm not a "real" woman.
About nine months before I outed myself to my cohorts in the pro-choice
movement, I was given a button that reads "Honorary Lesbian." I don't
wear it any more, but I still have it.
--Michelle
sa_a...@my-deja.com
anon-...@anon.twwells.com (<-|spunky|+>) wrote:
>
> > But who is lower on the totem pole, a white woman or a black man?
>
> Well I worked for 5 1/2 years at a major oil company and the top 2
floors
> had one black man and no women. The top woman exec was way down (13
floors
> to be exact) in Human Resources. It was easy to figure out the top
women
> execs because there were so few of them.
>
> > I'd say that it depends on what part of the country you're in.
>
> This was Houston.
>
> As someone who has worked stealth from day one, I feel I can say for
> certain that gender beats race in most fields. Except perhaps in the
> sciences.
>
> spunky
I must agree, Spunky, that the top levels of management, espeicially
those associated with the enterprise's strategic direction, are places
with little or no representation by women. Your experience in Houston
was not, in my opinion, a regional difference but rather one of
corporate cultures throughout much of the world. There are very few
women CEO's or COO's anywhere. It is one of the factors moving women
toward entreprenuership.
Your note about HR being seen in a much lesser light than the "actual
business" functions is rather sad, as an effective, strong and senior
HR VP can do much for a business enterprise (see how it works in
corporations like Emerson Electic). But it is true, nonetheless: HR
is often seen as a harmless administrative position and often is
reserved for women, providing us with the toeken senior management job.
Salllyanne
Paulinev00
>viewing me as a woman while many (people who knew me as a guy ...) were
>still treating me with the perqs of being a man.
I have worked for almost 3 years where everyone knows I used to be a guy. new
customers sometimes figure it out. strangle enought the people I work with do
not treat me anydifferent.
I do wish that they would all accept me as a woman.
I am stuck in my position as My wife stayed with me. and changing cities is
out.
sometimes we just have to live the life we are delt.
good luck
Paula
Diane
>There is indeed no shame in being born with a bod/mind mismatch,
>but no joy in it either. And so I feel no compulsion to put my
>head under the social ax for the sake of some theoretical claim
>about how I ought to be 'honest'. I already am honest in the
>only way that matters -- I work at being Real Me as hard as I
>can, every waking minute. Can't get honester than that.
Good heavens - we agree on something!
>Resp. my past, I'll start being 'honest' about that after the
>price of 'honesty' comes down. :-\ I have every right to live
>my life without suffering from other people's pathologies. And I
>intend to carry on doing it, too.
Sensible thinking.
------------------------------------
Diane
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
> jafr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > "It depends". TG and TS are not the same thing. I'm somewhat
> > open (more in a sec) and I have no problems with jobs or job offers.
> > But what is getting me those offers, and for the most part propping
> > up my current rep, is the years I spent living as a man.
>
> WOW!!! Thank you Julie!
>
> Did anyone else notice that Julie just showed that people who transition in
> place can reap some of the benefits of "male privilege"?
Not can, *will*. It is unavoidable because people won't stop seeing
you as a male. You just become a fag, a deranged man, or a sexual
pervert in their eyes. You lose privilege, but not male privilege.
> That she herself is doing what she accuses me of (with zero proof to back up
> that accusation, I might add)?
No, she's just being honest about an existential situation common to
all out transwomen. You're being accused of being either clueless, or
of sticking your head in the sand. I think Julie's ad hominems and
insulting attitude toward you are uncalled for (so what else is new),
but she makes some good points.
> Let me share my experience:
>
> I applied for the job as a woman. I was hired as a woman. I go to work as
> a woman. All of the people at work know I was born male. None of them know
> (or even care, apparently) whether or not I still have a penis. The male
> supervisors treat me as if I'm stupid (the same way they treat other
> women). They talk down to me and dismiss any idea or suggestion I have.
Assuming your ideas and suggestions aren't worthy of dismissal (and
I'm not taking Julie's side on this, I just wasn't there so I have to
allow for the possibility), then it sounds like these people might
actually see you as a woman. Gut feeling beats intellectual knowledge
when there's no direct experience to back it up. Even if you
transition in place, you will have less male privilege at your next
job as long as no one there has ever known you as a man.
But Julie is correct that male privilege is residual, and it can also
be passive, i.e. you don't have to actively exercise it to benefit. It
comes in the form of your experiences growing up, your socialisation
(obviously a mixed blessing), your training and credentials. I haven't
read your resume so I don't know anything about your background, but
even if you're completely self-taught, it can be argued that the
personal qualities (like self confidence and motivation) that it took
for you to do the hard work of studying and assimilating all that
knowledge are partly a product of male upbringing.
You don't have to even be out to benefit from male privilege, all you
can do is not actively take advantage of it, and cancel it out to some
extent. It's an insidious problem, and I think people would be less
insulting and on your case if you showed some appreciation of it.
- Liz
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
> anon-...@anon.twwells.com wrote:
>
> >The best that we can do to truly live as women, with none of the perqs
> >of our male past, is to completely chuck our present lives and start
> >over again from scratch (and even then, we cannot undo our formative
> >experiences). I daresay *very* few of us willingly do this; I
> >certainly don't plan to.
>
> Some of us do -- or at least did -- though. I did. Tipped the
> whole boiling into the midden. It was a requirement back then.
> All my post-secondary education, my last 3 professions,
> everything dates from after I got over. I raised my 3 kids as a
> single, working mum, all that. The whole megillah.
Ah, you transitioned early. A horse of a different color...
> It was hell. :-)
>
> And you're right about the effects -- I've always felt a
> surpassing sense of peace from that, a sense of having 'paid my
> dues' as fully as it's possible to pay them.
And one you're very much entitled to. The injustice of our society
being what it is, however, there are those who would banish even you
from women's space if they knew of your past... as you know well.
Please don't think that I am trying to impose my ethical problems on
others... it's just that I don't know how I personally would feel in
your situation. The problem I have is with the hiding, the "what would
they think if they knew", that when they bash queers they're bashing
*me*, but I dare not speak up. It's how I've lived my entire life,
hiding even from myself most of the time, and transition is in large
part a way to put that behind me. From where I sit now, stealth looks
like a slightly roomier closet, but a closet still.
I may feel differently in a few years -- I am smack in the middle of
transitioning in place.
>
> le meas,
> Agnes
le meas gu leor (or however you would say it),
Karen Ross
news:7m8363$2ukh$1...@twwells.com...
> But Julie is correct that male privilege is residual, and it can also
> be passive, i.e. you don't have to actively exercise it to benefit. It
> comes in the form of your experiences growing up, your socialisation
> (obviously a mixed blessing), your training and credentials. I haven't
> read your resume so I don't know anything about your background, but
> even if you're completely self-taught, it can be argued that the
> personal qualities (like self confidence and motivation) that it took
> for you to do the hard work of studying and assimilating all that
> knowledge are partly a product of male upbringing.
At that point, the arguments about male privilege moves from reasonable to
pretty murky. I've known plenty of women who are self-confident and
assertive. They sure didn't get that way through "male privilege". There's
a lot of truth to the concept of male privilege. It isn't necessary or
useful to extend it unreasonably by attributing every success to it.
I went back to school post-op in my twenties and got the background I needed
to start another career. *All* my relevant course work and credentials have
been obtained studying and working as a woman in fairly deep stealth. All
of it was earned in environments where male privilege worked for others and
against me and the other women with whom I studied and worked. I've had
women friends along the way who did as well as I have. It would be wide of
the mark to chalk-up my success to residual male privilege when equally
talented cradle women have managed to do essentially as well. Some have
done even better.
-- Kare
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
> <anon-...@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
> news:7m8363$2ukh$1...@twwells.com...
>
> > [...] it can be argued that the
> > personal qualities (like self confidence and motivation) that it took
> > for you to do the hard work of studying and assimilating all that
> > knowledge are partly a product of male upbringing.
>
> At that point, the arguments about male privilege moves from reasonable to
> pretty murky.
Yeah... you'll notice my wording, "it can be argued that.."; I didn't
say what I thought of the argument. :)
What I was getting at is that you can't completely discount the
intangibles in the male privilege equation. Without pushing it too
far, I think it's reasonable to say that the longer someone has lived
as a male, the more important those intangibles become and the harder
it is, all other things being equal, to argue that one is living
without the benefits of male privilege. The baggage you accumulate
through years of experience as an adult looms larger in my mind than
the childhood stuff we all share to varying degrees.
I think my reply to Agnes makes it clear that I'm *not* trying to
attribute everyone's success to male privilege.
> I went back to school post-op in my twenties and got the background I needed
> to start another career. *All* my relevant course work and credentials have
> been obtained studying and working as a woman in fairly deep stealth. All
> of it was earned in environments where male privilege worked for others and
> against me and the other women with whom I studied and worked.
Yes, but that's not true in my case, nor in Loree's.
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
> X-No-Archive: YES
>
> <anon-...@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
> news:7m7uph$2nql$1...@twwells.com...
>
> > This is the crux of a major ethical dilemma for me: being stealth is a
> > necessary condition for living fully as a woman, but it is a situation
> > where your quality of life is largely dependent on a lie... much like
> > living as a man.
>
> Whether you are living a "lie" is not necessarily a simple question. To lie
> includes an intent to deceive. If you *believe* you are a woman, then to
> present yourself to the world as one isn't a lie.
The "lie" is in allowing false assumptions about my *history* to pass
unchallenged, when the truth would make a serious difference in other
people's assessment of me as a person.
Michelle Steiner
wrote:
> Please don't think that I am trying to impose my ethical problems on
> others... it's just that I don't know how I personally would feel in
> your situation. The problem I have is with the hiding, the "what would
> they think if they knew", that when they bash queers they're bashing
> *me*, but I dare not speak up. It's how I've lived my entire life,
> hiding even from myself most of the time, and transition is in large
> part a way to put that behind me. From where I sit now, stealth looks
> like a slightly roomier closet, but a closet still.
That's why I leave the door to my closet open. During one of the
discussions I've had about sexual orientation and identity matters,
someone said to me, "What makes you so sure about that? I've read
extensively about transsexuals, and they're just a bunch of repressed
faggots who want to go to bed with other men." I said, "I don't know
what you've been reading, but that is total bullshit." His rejoinder
was, "what makes you such an authority?" I looked at him straight in
the eye and said, "Hon, what makes me such an authority is that I am
one."
--Michelle
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
> Liz sgriobh:
>
> >The "lie" is in allowing false assumptions about my *history* to pass
> >unchallenged, when the truth would make a serious difference in other
> >people's assessment of me as a person.
>
> I'm not sure that such an absolutist position is helpful, a Liz.
> For example, what ethical principle would oblige you to collude
> in your own oppression? None that I can think of.
On an intellectual level, I agree. Emotionally, I am very
uncomfortable with being in that position.
It has a lot to do with the fact that many people who would have no
problem with my being TS per se (and thus do not qualify in my book as
would-be oppressors) would still feel betrayed by the deception if the
truth were later revealed. I think it's human nature, and it takes a
big person to see beyond the apparent betrayal to the reasons for
keeping this private.
Because gender is so basic to people's image of us, this is usually a
bigger deal in their eyes than something like cancer or other purely
physical illness, which people more readily accept as none of their
beeswax.
- Liz
(who BTW knows only the Gaelic she picked up by studying Agnes's
closings...)
Michelle Steiner
<no...@nowhere.nodomain> wrote:
> Your formative years -- times when you learned about boundaries and
> limitations -- were spent as a man.
As a boy, perhaps. :)
> Back when I lived as a guy I would
> talk to women about "speaking up more". They related accounts of being
> talked over from grade school and eventually getting tired of even trying.
Hmm, that happened to me in grade school, jr. high school, and high
school, even though I was a boy. Even girls got called on in
preference to me. It was quite frustrating. At least I was used to it
after transitioning, so it didn't come as such a shock to me as it does
to so many others. <wry grin>
Michelle Steiner
<no...@nowhere.nodomain> wrote:
> So is failing to disclose a lie? Only when you present yourself as
> an example of what =any= woman could attain. We aren't "any
> woman", we are women who happened to live a goodly number
> of our formative years as men.
A few months ago, a number of us in the SF Bay area who grew up in the
Bronx got together for a "reunion." My then girlfriend went to this
party with me. Of course, the usual questions were asked, "Where did
you go to school?" and the like.
I went to a high school that was, at the time, an all-boy school.
Unlike most NYC high schools, it accepted students from anywhere in the
city; most other non-specialized schools were neighborhood schools.
It's a fairly well-known school (or was back then) to the residents, so
if I told the people there that I had gone to that school, it would
have outed me--especially since there was another graduate of that
school there. I couldn't say that I went to the neighborhood high
school, because there were three women there who graduated that school
the same year I graduated high school. So, I told them that I went to
the all-girl school that had been a few blocks from the school I
actually went to. I told them that my family moved to New Rochelle at
the beginning of my senior year (true), and that I finished high school
at New Rochelle High (false; I continued at Clinton, "officially"
moving in with my grandmother), so that's why I didn't bring my year
book with me. It also got me out of having to speak about my senior
year at Walton (the all girl school).
This past week, on the ts-lesbian mailing list, we were talking about
stealth, closets, woodworking, and the like, and my ex girlfriend laid
into me for lying at that reunion party, claiming that I should not
have lied about where I had gone to high school.
A day or two later, she apologized for being so harsh to me and a few
others; she's just gone off hormones in preparation for SRS (in 24
days), and is suffering badly from PMS and/or menapause.
--Michelle
Diane
>The "lie" is in allowing false assumptions about my *history* to pass
>unchallenged, when the truth would make a serious difference in other
>people's assessment of me as a person.
The fallacy here is that is reasonable to expect a serious difference
in another's opinion. Yes, there are some who would have a seriously
different view of me if they knew the "T". On the other hand there
are some who's opinion of me would seriously differ if they knew that
I was Jewish, Bi or had smoked a joint or two in my time. The point
to be made being that none of the above are anyone's business and if
anyone has a problem with it then it"s *their* problem and they need
to deal with it. It's not something which I believe I have an ethical
obligation to inform anyone of.
When I say i'm a woman it's because I *am* a woman. My saying
anything else would be... disingenuous.
------------------------------------
Diane
Karen Ross
news:7m8g2j$gho$1...@twwells.com...
> > I went back to school post-op in my twenties and got the background I
needed
> > to start another career. *All* my relevant course work and credentials
have
> > been obtained studying and working as a woman in fairly deep stealth.
All
> > of it was earned in environments where male privilege worked for others
and
> > against me and the other women with whom I studied and worked.
>
> Yes, but that's not true in my case, nor in Loree's.
Didn't imply that it was - just trying to illustrate the range of varience.
-- Kare
Loree Thomas
People sharing personal experiences, insights, doubts, fears and questions.
It's hard to believe this wonderful thread started with a very personal
attack by Julie against me and Sallyanne believing Julie's lie and using it
to launch one of her pet topics... This is the first time it's ever
actually taken off.
Have I been the beneficiary of male privilege?
Of course I have. And so has everybody posting in this news group (with the
possible exception of non-transitioned FTMs and the occasional born female).
You (and I) have so much to go through, so much to give up... such big risks
to take.
Somehow, it's difficult for me to see why you should beat yourself up over
whatever small advantage you can wring from being born male. You all
certainly have paid a very high price for that very thing.
Do I intentionally take advantage of male privilege? No, I don't.
Anybody who says otherwise is a big fat liar.
Hugs,
Loree
sa_a...@my-deja.com
Loree Thomas <lor...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Now this is a.s.srs at it's best.
>
> People sharing personal experiences, insights, doubts, fears and
questions.
>
> It's hard to believe this wonderful thread started with a very
personal
> attack by Julie against me and Sallyanne believing Julie's lie and
using it
> to launch one of her pet topics... This is the first time it's ever
> actually taken off.
>
This thread was never started as a personal attack on you but an
exploriation of an issue which needs to be considered by those who
transition. Many of us don't understand what is going on in the
workplace when we transition; and I used Julie's comments, which are
often thoughtful though not often tactful, to bring the issue to the
fore. Yes, Loree, it is one of my pet topics, just as all economic
aspects of transition are favorites of mine, for very good reason--I
know a bit more about the matter than most who pass through this
newsgroup. Some of our lawyers often offer directions in matters of
law, or physicians have contributed a lot of their medical knowledge,
those who have managed to retain a relationship with their families can
help us know of the methodology of familial relationships, those who
transitioned long ago bring to us their years of experience, those who
are transitioning early in life bring their special understanding and
those of us who transitioned in middle age bring another perspective.
None of us are holders of infinite wisdom, but we often can lean coping
skills from one another.
Sallyanne
Seven
> discussions I've had about sexual orientation and identity matters,
> someone said to me, "What makes you so sure about that? I've read
> extensively about transsexuals, and they're just a bunch of repressed
> faggots who want to go to bed with other men." I said, "I don't know
> what you've been reading, but that is total bullshit." His rejoinder
> was, "what makes you such an authority?" I looked at him straight in
> the eye and said, "Hon, what makes me such an authority is that I am
> one."
>
> --Michelle
Bravo, Michelle!
Seven
Julie <no...@nowhere.nodomain> wrote in message
news:3787d...@feed1.realtime.net...
> You and I went to school -- including our first undergraduate degrees --
> as men when we weren't (presumably) talked over. We were given
> opportunities to ask questions and challenge others in ways which are
> not permitted to most women. Learning whatever self-confidence we
> learned during those years isn't something to be casually dismissed.
>
> -- Julie.
Must have been a different era than my college time. Most of the women at
USF, at least in the psychology program, were very assertive and well
versed, outspoken.
Seven
news:378ac67e....@news.mindspring.com...
> "Seven" <se...@slackgirls.zzn.com> wrote:
>
> >Must have been a different era than my college time. Most of the women
at
> >USF, at least in the psychology program, were very assertive and well
> >versed, outspoken.
>
Probably so, Agnes. I asked myself that very question after I posted that
response: Can I generalize to the campus population or women overall from a
sample of one major and my own biased observations? The answer is definitly
"not" however it does merit other research, further observation ;-)
<-|spunky|+>
someone wrote:
> So is failing to disclose a lie? Only when you present yourself as
> an example of what =any= woman could attain. We aren't "any
> woman", we are women who happened to live a goodly number
> of our formative years as men.
Well even though I have ditched my former career as a male
(communications tech), there were women in that field at the time
albeit very few. Could I have acheived the same in my former
career had I been born female? Possibly, but it would likely have
been harder.
I've always wrestled with this dilemma. When I spoke of returning to
school to study the sciences, a few people who knew my past accused
me of being "lucky" to have been socialized as a male because males
were encouraged to study such things. Perhaps. But on the other hand
I knew many young women my age who did much better in the sciences
than I did in high school. Part of the reason was due to a bad attitude
I had in school growing up. No small part of this was the physical abuse
I incurred in grade school and junior high. My girlish appearance as a
child and teenager didn't help. The fact that I was often beaten to
the point of bleeding and raped three times while the pricipal looked
the other way didn't inspire respect for teachers and authority.
Unfortunately this also carried over to my early career. I entered the
work force at age 20 after a 2 year degree & spent the next 3 years
not able to hold a job. Only time & distance from my home environment
allowed me to find a niche where I could do well in a job & more
important, to trust people again. Returning to school years later and
out of the abusive environment, I excelled. I graduated at the top of
my major at my undergrad school, and am now finishing my MS at a
nationally ranked university (don't know yet about the PhD).
The question reamins however, If I were born female, I certainly would
not have the male privelege and encouragement to study the sciences.
But on the other hand I would have likely avoided the bullying that so
poisoned my attitude in early life.
Did one offset the other? I don't know.
spunky
**
Make a hole with a gun perpendicular
To the name of this town in a desk-top globe
Exit wound in a foreign nation
Showing the home of the one this was written for
Seven
> er, I was being only slightly facetious...we really *are*
> different. For example, there's a special psychopath subscale
> used in scoring the MMPI when taken by psychologists because
> otherwise we'd peg the meter. :-)
Ahh, that's true. I never got beyond the RA level in cognitive and IO
areas, but hope to return someday soon to my studies. Even with that in
mind, I would know enough about any number of the testing proceedures to
give "appropriate" answers, sharing only that about myself that I wanted to
share.
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
> Liz wrote:
>
> >> I'm not sure that such an absolutist position is helpful, a Liz.
> >> For example, what ethical principle would oblige you to collude
> >> in your own oppression? None that I can think of.
> >
> >On an intellectual level, I agree. Emotionally, I am very
> >uncomfortable with being in that position.
>
> All that proves, really, in my view, is that you are a
> well-socialised child of your culture. It doesn't mean, to me,
> that your emotional response is superior or should enjoy pride of
> place.
I've never maintained that emotional response should take primacy over
intellectual rigor -- that would indeed be a strange position for a
scientist! But the way I relate to other humans is often guided as
much by emotion as by intellect; sometimes more so.
>
> >It has a lot to do with the fact that many people who would have no
> >problem with my being TS per se (and thus do not qualify in my book as
> >would-be oppressors) would still feel betrayed by the deception if the
> >truth were later revealed. I think it's human nature, and it takes a
> >big person to see beyond the apparent betrayal to the reasons for
> >keeping this private.
>
> hmmm...so are you saying that you feel the need to take care of
> them because they're not 'big' enough to understand your
> position?
Not at all. I just respect other people's sensibilities in this enough
to be loath to base close relationships on what, if disclosed, would
be perceived as a substantial deception. If that makes me a "well
socialised child of my culture", then so be it.
> I find it helpful in my own life to keep track of boundaries.
> I've known folk with an avid interest in the details of my
> horizontal recreation, for example, but that doesn't seem to
> create in me a need to disclose those details. A few have felt
> so entitled to the information that they felt hurt by my silence,
> but even that didn't alter my mind. It would have been a
> boundary violation, to me, and I saw no reason to adopt their
> view of the situation in preference to my own.
The details of one's intimate recreational activities, to me, fall
under the heading of "prurient interest". From my present perspective,
this has much more to do with identity and personal history, the sense
of a shared background (and in some cases, a common struggle) that
helps to cement friendships and other close relationships.
For you the branch between your history and your peers' is much
farther back. You *do* have a substantially common background with
other women your age. I don't think I generally have a problem with
boundaries, and there's a possibility that I will eventually reach
that point myself, though I'm certain it will take a long time.
>
> >(who BTW knows only the Gaelic she picked up by studying Agnes's
> >closings...)
>
> I'm impressed, then! It's not the easy language to recognise.
I can't claim to have recognised it either; I only guessed it was one
of the Celtic languages. Someone else posted the URL to a Gaeilge
site, and I took an interest.
> gu smigeadh, agus le meas,
> Agnes
Best wishes (beir beannacht),
- Liz