The New York Times is Falling in the Polls

The New York Times has lost a bit of my admiration by publishing an opinion piece by Peggy Klaus called 'Neither Mice Nor Men' (March 5, 2010). The article is about women's inferior role in the work place and cites a corporate woman who says, "Even in this day and age, a guy barks out an order and he is treated like someone who is in charge and a leader. But when a woman communicates in the exact same way, she's immediately labeled assertive, dominating, aggressive and overbearing."

Let's be clear about something - ANYONE who barks out an order is perceived as assertive, dominating, aggressive and overbearing. Man or woman. Barking isn't widely regarded as the premiere way to treat teammates in the workplace. If we tolerate that we are all in trouble. It certainly isn't the posterchild for how to win friends an influence people!

Klaus goes on to say, "...you'd think that women could finally relax and stop worrying about how they are being perceived at the office. But women must still deal with a well-entrenched double standard when it comes to gender-acceptable behavior." So they kowtow. They button up. They hold back. They regret. They undercut their careers.

NO, NO, NO! This is 2011. There are women leading great, important nations today - Brazil, Germany, Argentina. Good God - do they kowtow? No they do not. They lead with purpose and with supreme interpersonal skills...so do all the men leading great nations. This isn't a double standard, it is THE standard, and such an old standard at that: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

The article's culminating advice to women is as follows:

Ultimately, women must be more mindful and use greater finesse when conveying their messages. We need to become better chameleon communicators and to carefully read our audiences, adjusting our style to the circumstances.

No we don't. The golden rule isn't weighted by gender. To suggest otherwise is to throw us back in time and stunt the world's progress toward equality.

Klaus concludes the article with a little dance of retreat: "Let me be clear. I'm not asking you to give up your soul - but rather to exercise new communication muscles so you can be heard..." I cannot argue with the call to expand communication might - we all could use a little fine-tuning. But I will argue that the very word chameleon suggests that we be something we are not - that we change our colors to fit the scenery. A chameleon changes its colors when threatened - it blends in for protection. So shall we camouflage ourselves now, in the halls of our corporations and in the boardrooms we fill - in the boardrooms we lead!? Shall we not be who we are? Shall we fear for our survival?

'Neither Mice Nor Men' has made a mountain out of a mole hill (or a mouse hole). Klaus' call to sharpen our communication skills is lost in the victim mentality portrayed. She reintroduces the suffrage of our past in effort to sensationalize something in our present. Workplace communication is unisex - gender plays no role. We either treat each other with respect or we don't. And if we don't, perhaps the label of 'bitch' or 'jackass' is well deserved.

Read it for yourself and let me know what you think: Neither Mice Nor Men