Posted on 10/15/2005 8:17:02 PM PDT by nickcarraway
WHEN women first joined the executive ranks of corporate America a generation ago, they donned sober slacks and button-down shirts. They carried standard-issue briefcases and adopted their male colleagues' stoicism.
More than two decades later, women have stopped trying to behave like men, trading in drab briefcases for handbags and embracing men's wear only if it is tailored to their curves. Yet there is one taboo from the earlier, prefeminist workplace that endures: women are not allowed to cry at the office. It is a potentially career-marring mistake that continues to be seen as a sign of weakness or irrationality, no less by women themselves than by men.
For evidence consider a recent episode of NBC's "Apprentice: Martha Stewart," in which a young woman whose team had just lost a flower-selling contest told Ms. Stewart that she felt like crying. Her admission elicited no sympathy from her prospective employer, only blunt career advice.
"Cry and you are out of here," Ms. Stewart said. "Women in business don't cry, my dear."
Women in politics don't either, judging by Geena Davis's performance as the steely Mackenzie Allen on ABC's "Commander in Chief." Discussing the pilot episode, in which Allen navigates a political minefield to ascend to the office of president of the United States, Ms. Davis told a reporter from The Chicago Sun-Times, "I did not cry in my pilot - no!"
For reasons both biological and social, scientists and sociologists say, women are more inclined than men to feel the urge to cry when they are frustrated. Yet Martha Stewart is not the only woman executive who expects her underlings to remain dry-eyed. Many other workplace veterans also impose the rule and through seminars, books, Web sites and private conversations, recommend tricks for how to follow it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This has nothing to do with environment, and everything to do with mental discipline. There is a world of difference between having emotion and making it apparent that your decisions are controlled and biased by your emotions. It does not matter whether I am sitting in an office or taking fire, I still expect people to stay rational and not become unglued. Such expectations are not unrealistic if people know it is expected of them and their leaders walk the walk, and I have had my trial by fire many times.
You either own your emotions or your emotions own you, and most things in business are not worth any emotional investment to begin with.
Sorry, I'm from the United States. Maybe Italians or Brazilians cry over the World Cup, but it any U.S. person who did would be highly suspect.
Like I said. It doesn't qualify as a good reason to cry in the office.
I was trying to point out that sometimes things are a bit more "trying" than at other times and places. I do not suggest crying, screaming at others, nor losing your wits. I guess failed to do so.
It depends a great deal on the job. In a profession such as yours, I could see where emotional neutrality would be preferable. In other professions, however, especially those filled with heartbreaking situations, it would be nearly impossible, if not downright callous, not to shed the occasional tear. As long as it doesn't create a scene or interfere with professional objectivity, I see no problem with it.
Bump for us green-eyed superstars...I'm one of them too!
One of the few types worse working for or with than a cryer is a retentive nit picker that always has to follow "policy".
God bless you and her, for the love you shared; a love which you are keeping very alive.
I think you're thinking of the stress card. I believe that ended with Clinton's Presidency but I'm not sure.
I stand corrected.
Without doubt, "Old Yeller", what the he!! was I thinking?
I feel yur pain, bubba.
"Thanks for sharing."
Do you refer to me or the boss who forces me to enforce company policy?
"F" ing A
Man, if you don't tear up when Jim Brown gets gunned down in the Dirty Dozen, you have no soul. LOL
I work on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. I dunno, some people might find that a job where really important "stuff" happens.
Granted, the level of tolerance of abusive behavior is a little higher than your typical office job, nonetheless, a supervisor who can't "keep his cool" in my job is dangerous. In an office job, he would be merely annoying or intimidating.
I won't tolerate (and neither will the Navy) unstable, sociopathic, abusive supervisors regardless of my occupation (and yes, I've worked in an office before as well).
Pard, a bird farm flight deck certainly counts as important "stuff".
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Like I tell my kids. I if there are tears, there had better be blood or broken bones! That goes for the girls also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.