workin’ for the man?

Last night, I was talking to David, who’s a sociologist by training, and he mentioned that, by an overwhelming margin, most people (men & women included) would rather work for a man than a woman.

The topic came up in a discussion related to Hillary Clinton — is she an evil, conniving woman, or just perceived as such because she’s a strong, aggressive woman?

Personally, I’ve worked almost exclusively for women throughout my life; the lone exception proved to be a miserable experience (for both my he-boss and for me). So my answer to the rhetorical runs contrary to what most people would say; I’d elect to work for a woman anyday.

What about you? Don’t be PC, be honest: Would you rather work for a man or a woman? Any reason why?

You may also like...


  1. Anonymous says:

    To answer your question, it depends. Would my she-boss be cute? lol

  2. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say I prefer working for men over women, but without fail, all of my experiences working for women have been far more negative than those working for men. I think it's because many women feel that to prove they deserve a leadership role and can do it as well as a man, they go way overboard in the "strong" and "agressive" arenas. To be strong and agressive as someone's boss without the balance of compassion and encouragement (seen as weaknesses by many) leads to the perception of "evil" and "conniving". Women may be equally or more capable in some instances, but if you can't get your troops to trust and respect you, it rarely matters. A quote we educators like to pass around comes to mind here: "No one cares what you know or say until they know you care." Women in leadership positions simply have ro realize that showing you care doesn't negate your ability to do a job well, and we'd have all the control!

Comments are closed.