Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

    I've heard women say they wouldn't vote for a female President. We'll see what happens when Hillary runs.

    Ayn Rand says it (I think in this interview) with Donahue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8Jjth81_Q
    Story Structure 1
    Story Structure 2
    Story Structure 3

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

      That's also an interesting conundrum, SC. I was listening to a comic book podcast recently where a woman told another that although The New 52 Wonder Woman comics are terrible, she still buys them all to support the character. I get that impulse, but I also don't know that we should be supporting sub-par material just because we want to encourage the genre as a whole. I think if women instead buy more comics like Lazarus and Fearless Defenders, that sends a better message. It says "Yes, we like female characters, but we insist that they be well written. We will not accept whatever crap you try to throw at us."*






      *Bridesmaids is not crap.
      Chicks Who Script podcast

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

        "We live in an era where physical strength is less important than mental strength than ever before. Women need to stop choosing subordinate roles."

        Why do so many women go for misogynistic *******s, anyway? Would someone explain the bad boy myth? Is it just sexual?

        The women in my life tend to watch bad movies starring men, usually with their shirts off (the actors / not the viewers). These are big dumb action movies that I have no interest in personally, but there's something calling to the females ... something ...
        Hell of a Deal -- Political Film Blog

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

          Emily -- as for Bridesmaids -- that trailer with the vomiting kept me away because even if someone fakes vomiting it tends to make me start vomiting. It's truly the reason I didn't go see it in a theater. I didn't want to risk puking in my popcorn.

          To no one in particular:

          Some of the responses here seem to show we women do indeed tend to hold other women to a higher standard than men do. And that somehow we're all ambassadors for our gender before we're individuals.

          And in the spirit of getting to the bottom of it -- which can only help us as people, men and women a like, especially those Moms and Dads raising girls -- I'm going to call myself out for doing it too.

          Right now I'm working on a launching a blog and writing entries in advance. One topic I'm working on is my open apology to Diablo Cody. And it's interesting that I started writing it way before I heard the Scriptnotes podcast and read the NYT article today.

          When the Juno press story hit -- "former stripper turned screenwriter" -- I was offended by the stripper angle and I went on a rant. Although in that rant I said I had read Juno (my manager at the time sent it to me) and saw Cody's talent and voice, I judged Cody severely for what I saw at the time as leveraging her stripper days to promote her script. I even went on a tear investigating whether or not she really had been a stripper at all. I was totally bonkers -- I admit it.

          At the time, my core fear was that this set a precedent for women writers that being a good writer is not enough. Now we women had to show our boobs to get our scripts read. And I placed the blame squarely on Cody. I was wrong in so many ways I won't get into here.

          But the umbrella judgement that I was wrong to fling about was judging Cody as a "bad" ambassador for women writers. That's not her responsibility. She should not be saddled with the responsibility of representing anyone other than herself.

          We as women can't shine as individuals if we keep seeing ourselves and other women as part of a "group" responsible to the "group" first.
          Last edited by sc111; 10-10-2013, 11:12 AM.
          Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

            About this:

            Originally posted by emily blake View Post
            "Yes, we like female characters, but we insist that they be well written. We will not accept whatever crap you try to throw at us."
            Yes, quality alone is the best standard.

            However, the study referenced reveals women gatekeepers judged the same play more harshly when the cover indicated a woman was the author, than when the cover had a male name.

            That's mind boggling, no?
            Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

              Re: the Cody thing - isn't there a danger there that you're now overcompensating, assuming that your reaction was a woman-thing, when actually it could have been a simple grrrr-f'k them for taking a shortcut-thing? I mean, when I first heard the whole stripper-writer angle, I felt pretty much the same thing, but then slapped my wrist for being a misogynist. But actually wasn't it just me getting annoyed that it felt a bit of a cheat, like when the son of Megacorp's boss gets promoted to CEO of Megacorp?*

              I dunno. I watched those THR Roundtable things a while back, and the one with Denzel Washington and Jamie Foxx was really interesting, in that Washington was clearly a huge influence and mentor to other black actors; but perhaps more interestingly there was no apology, no sense that he had to explain this, or justify this - it was just, yeah, of course I look out for other black actors, musicians, performers.

              Maybe there just needs to be more women prepared to say, yeah, I'm going to look after other women, so what? And if the quality's there then - as Bridesmaids proved - people will come.




              * for the purposes of this, let's assume that the Cody-stripper stuff was all exactly as presented in the tackiest website/tabloid versions. Rather than her being, y'know, good.
              My stuff

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

                Originally posted by Jon Jay View Post
                Re: the Cody thing - isn't there a danger there that you're now overcompensating, assuming that your reaction was a woman-thing, when actually it could have been a simple grrrr-f'k them for taking a shortcut-thing? I mean, when I first heard the whole stripper-writer angle, I felt pretty much the same thing, but then slapped my wrist for being a misogynist. But actually wasn't it just me getting annoyed that it felt a bit of a cheat, like when the son of Megacorp's boss gets promoted to CEO of Megacorp?
                Hmmm, well, I didn't react back then because I thought it was a cheat in the way you reference a CEOs son being promoted to CEO.

                I recognized the talent and voice in Juno. At the time, I was thinking women spend their lives trying to get men to look them in the eyes when they have something to say, not look at their boobs or see them as a life support system for a warm vagina. And when the media blitz hit I saw it as Cody saying, "Hey, look at my naked boobs and now that I have your attention, did you notice I'm a damn good writer?"

                I saw this as "setting us back" to a point on the proverbial dial marked: a woman is a sex object first and foremost. And I was angry that Cody did this to "us." Of course, I held a ridiculous POV which I now see in all its ridiculousness. And I know I judged her far more harshly than I would judge a male writer who experimented with stripping and then found success with his writing. (Because, the truth is, Cody was a writer way before she ever stripped. )

                The entire sexual component is also murky and hard to explain. From the outside it may seem women are "jealous" when other women draw male attention with their sexual attractiveness. But I don't think this is the core reason.

                As we grow up women intuitively understand being sexually attractive to the opposite sex is a double-edged sword. A sword that a woman can seriously cut herself with if she's not careful how she wields her sexual allure. I think it's not about jealousy so much as anxiety that things can really go sideways when women may even appear to be leveraging sexual titillation for attention. It's like some primitive anxiety -- if one woman in the tribe starts whipping the boys up into a frenzy we may all get raped.

                For example, my 11 year old girl is tall for her age and she's developing curves fast. There's no denying that in some outfits she wants to try on at the store, she looks older than she is and, if I let her wear it, she may draw male attention she's not emotionally mature enough to handle.

                So, here I am, on one hand, with my firm belief we women should be able to dress any way we want to express ourselves. And on the other hand I'm talking the kid out of this or that outfit trying to tiptoe around why I'm really talking her out of it.

                And so it goes.
                Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

                  Originally posted by polfilmblog View Post
                  Why do so many women go for misogynistic *******s, anyway? Would someone explain the bad boy myth? Is it just sexual?
                  It's not just about being bad. If you're ugly and treat women poorly, you'll just end up in a jail cell.

                  Bad (good-looking, ripped) boys have huge confidence, which women find ubersexy. They're also more fun, wild and adventurous. And women like the challenge of turning a bad boy good (Social Worker Syndrome).

                  However, it's not so much about being "bad" per se. A "nice" guy with all the above traits is still highly desirable. Just look at the reaction women have to Boy Bands.
                  I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

                    Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                    It's not just about being bad. If you're ugly and treat women poorly, you'll just end up in a jail cell.

                    Bad (good-looking, ripped) boys have huge confidence, which women find ubersexy. They're also more fun, wild and adventurous. And women like the challenge of turning a bad boy good (Social Worker Syndrome).

                    However, it's not so much about being "bad" per se. A "nice" guy with all the above traits is still highly desirable. Just look at the reaction women have to Boy Bands.
                    Personally, I never had the desire to turn a bad boy good. Never found myself particularly attracted to bad boys over nice boys. I know a lot of women who don't go for bad boys either.

                    Perhaps, under Social Worker Syndrome, a deeper reason may be those women who are afraid to be wild, adventurous and take risks themselves are living vicariously through bad boys.
                    Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

                      I want to chime in here, because the NYT article is about one economist's study of data points back in 2009. As recently as 2013, Sheryl Sandberg pointed to studies that indicate that bias against women occurs in both genders.

                      Unfortunately, I listened to "Lean In" on audiobook, so I don't have a copy handy to flip open and check the citations, but I'm pretty sure these are the studies she's referencing:

                      The first, I believe was this one: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...86109.full.pdf, where they put male and female names on resumes and asked potential employers if they would consider hiring the applicant. Male names caused the employer to respond more positively to the resume, female names caused the employer to respond negatively. Both male and female employers showed this bias.

                      The second, which I can't find an online citation for, was an experiment led by Columbia Business School and New York University professors. They gave the students a case study from the Harvard Business School about a successful entrepreneur, Heidi Roizen. But half of the students received the case study with one difference. "Heidi" was changed to "Howard."

                      "Howard came across as a more appealing colleague," Sandberg writes. "Heidi, on the other hand, was seen as selfish and not 'the type of person you would want to hire or work for.' The same data with a simple difference - gender - created vastly different impressions."

                      Again, these results were shown equally in men and women.

                      So, here's my thought on this NYT piece: Male artistic directors of theaters are something of an outlier, but female artistic directors fit pretty well in the trend discovered by other studies.

                      My recollection, btw, is that further studies have shown that when someone believes themselves to be "bias-free" -- they take a quiz about societal attitudes that allows them to express the belief that women deserve equal treatment -- they then rebound and act with *less* fairness towards women in a hypothetical evaluation.

                      If that's true, it would mean that every time a female artistic director talks about how much she believes in supporting female playwrights, she's cognitively tricking herself into thinking she *is already* supporting female playwrights, so that she is more likely to slip and be unfair when the opportunity to commission/support/fund a female playwright comes along. (You also see this in "green halo" studies -- people who think they are doing something virtuous, driving a Prius, eating vegan, etc. are more likely to break a minor social rule or guideline, believing that they've earned it because of their previously virtuous behavior.)

                      One final thought: Molly Lambert's excellent "How to Be a Woman in a Boy's Club (http://thisrecording.com/today/2011/...boys-club.html) is a spectacular unpacking of the expectations and tiny micro conflicts of being a woman in a male dominated environment. I try to read it once a month, minimum, in hopes of reminding myself what I'm trying to do while I'm here on this g.d. planet.

                      You'll note that none of the above says "we should" or "we ought" or "people can't be always." I'm just offering more information to this discussion. I don't think any kind of "henceforth, let's not suck" decree could possibly work -- in fact, if the studies above are correct, issuing such a decree would actually increase my chance of being a dick later today -- but I'd be interested to see if just thinking about these issues and being aware of them creates any relevant shifts in behavior.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

                        On a separate note, I want to add that, in my experience, "nice guys" are men who think women are capricious pixies who must be wooed through a specific protocol of appropriate phrases and actions. Their niceness is an act, a mask they wear to conceal their true intentions. Many women can sense this mask, this lack of authentic behavior, and they are reluctant to open up or form a trusting relationship with someone who isn't being upfront about who they are.

                        "Bad boys" tend to blurt out whatever the hell they're thinking. This is often hugely inappropriate, but it is also very appealing, because it reassures the woman that what she sees is what she's going to get. The misbehavior, the screw ups -- this is someone who isn't faking that they make more than they do by leasing a car they can't afford or wearing a watch they're still trying to pay off. (I cannot tell you how many women have admitted in my hearing that they don't find Louis CK at all attractive, but would totally sleep with him, because the apparent authenticity of his comic persona is nigh irresistible.)

                        Lately there is a new phenomenon of "nice guys" joining the pick-up artist community and taking on a "bad boy persona." This is no more authentic than the "nice guy" act, and the women I know who've tangled with PUAs were never in the slightest danger of dating or sleeping with them; their bizarre, over-the-top naughtiness was no more believable than the previous "niceness," quotes very much intended.

                        These are generalizations, of course, but I have had these observations validated over and over and over in my life. I have been married for 10 years. On my first date with my husband, we went out to dinner at a cheap Moroccan place and split the check because we were both poor. He invited me over to his place, we sat on the couch, and he said, "I'm going to kiss you now, if that's okay." It was not a scene out of a romantic comedy. He was not cool at all. (I believe we were looking at old New Yorker magazines at the time.) It was two people, on a couch, and a guy saying what he felt. I was utterly won over and still am. (I tell people my husband looks like Cary Grant. I can tell from their reactions that this is a distortion on my part, but I'll be damned if I know what they see when they look at him.)

                        Is my husband a nice guy? Absolutely. But he's not a "nice guy." First and foremost, he's a human being, and he's never tried to hide that from me.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

                          Originally posted by kpowers View Post
                          I cannot tell you how many women have admitted in my hearing that they don't find Louis CK at all attractive, but would totally sleep with him, because the apparent authenticity of his comic persona is nigh irresistible.
                          So chicks will sleep with some ugly, perpetually unemployed guy who lives in his parents basement, as long as he's authentic while doing stand-up?

                          The reason women find CK desirable is because he's also rich, successful, famous, daring, rogue etc.

                          You can't just narrow it down to one trait.
                          I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

                            Originally posted by mgwriter View Post
                            Oh of course. But one thing I'd like to see women take more responsibility for is fact that they are majority population, so if they want things to change power-wise, they've got the numbers to change things. On top of that women are primarily responsible for raising the next generation of men. Don't raise your sons to be discriminatory toward women. You got the majority numbers. Use them. You got the power to shape future generation. Use it.
                            To assume that simply because a group is a majority in a population base is equal to saying they are also equally represented in positions of power and decision making is kinda silly. White men hold the majority of power positions in most management level and executive level positions in most American companies. It is not an equal playing field, and until it is, women do not have the power to change that dynamic-- men do.

                            Nothing personal, but it's a little like saying that it's the 99%'s own fault that corporate greed controls our country and that they (the 99%) have the power to change it simply due to their sheer numbers-- the world doesn't work that way.

                            People (sometimes) are afraid to hire and even promote women in other jobs, because the woman may want to have a family. And if she does have a family, let's say three kids in three years... well that manager is thinking, "who's going to do her job when she takes family leave for four months? Oh, right, that would be me, the manager." That's equal to one full year of absence in three years. They don't care if it's their right. They care when it's their daughter, or their wife, but not so much when it's their employee-- at least in some of my experiences.

                            But then you also have companies that allow a high risk pregnant employee work from home because she is placed on a medical restriction and forced on bedrest for 5 months-- even to the point of allowing her to have her staff travel to her home to conduct weekly staff meetings. And still grant her her four months maternity leave, but that doesn't mean she's paid equally.

                            In my current company, all the executives are white males and all of their support staff are women except two. I worked for one of the largest retailers in the country an they had 11 executive vice presidents and all of them where white men except 1-- she was a black woman, a new hire at the time. It was a diverse company, but you didn't see the diversity in the upper management. There were 20+ Category Managers, but only two were women.

                            In every company I've ever worked for women had far more responsibilities than their male counterparts in the same position, and the expectations were higher, yet they still were paid less than men.

                            So, yeah, I can buy that there's a psychology at work here from a woman's point of view. We have to work harder, so we expect other women to work just as hard... They can't just be 'as good,' they have to be 'better than.'

                            These are general statements based on my own experience.

                            I've always felt that women are more accepted in writing than anywhere else. Of course my experience is very limited.

                            With respect to writing, it's sad to me that men think of woman as equals, yet women still feel a sense of inequality-- why else would they judge a woman harder?

                            Just a thought.
                            Best.
                            FA4
                            Last edited by finalact4; 10-12-2013, 08:07 AM. Reason: grammar
                            "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

                              I realize inequalities exist. I'm saying don't accept them as the norm.

                              We are raising the future men and women who will be in positions of power right now. We may have to face inequalities in our lifetime, but we can make the future better by the way we raise our sons and daughters today. Gender role equality is the way to go. Teach them it's normal for girls to be in positions of power sometimes and also it's normal for boys to take subordinate roles sometimes.

                              It's difficult to get an accurate picture when we look at our very best screenwriters and directors today because the vast majority of them are white males. They deserve to be where they are because the overwhelming majority of people they beat out for those positions are other white males. So it can't be said they only got their jobs because they're white and male.

                              IMHO, i think these inequalities start way sooner than when applying for jobs. The inequality starts when white little boys are taught and grow up believing they can have any job they want if they work hard enough regardless of skill and talent. Conversely little white girls and minorities are often encouraged to aspire to more subordinate roles. parents are often well meaning. When they see that most screenwriters are males, they may want their daughter to try for something more attainable. Things may start to change if we teach our daughters and minority children to truly believe (as white males do) that they can achieve anything they're willing to work hard for. And even though the numbers today don't bear it out, they are indeed equal.

                              Is my silly theory going to help our adult generation of female and minority writers right now?, probably not. But we can change tomorrow today.

                              I don't mean to sound so preachy, to give some context I was told by doctors in 2004 I had a few months to live. Instead of following up my first "real" option with a shitload of work, instead I spent the next 10 years in and out of hospitals trying to stay alive. I've long since accepted I missed my window of opportunity but I still love this screenwriting thing and that's why I hang around here, more focused on making things better in the future for writers than I am concerned with the way things are now. Forgive me if my forward looking attitude annoys.



                              Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
                              To assume that simply because a group is a majority in a population base is equal to saying they are also equally represented in positions of power and decision making is kinda silly. White men hold the majority of power positions in most management level and executive level positions in most American companies. It is not an equal playing field, and until it is, women do not have the power to change that dynamic-- men do.

                              Nothing personal, but it's a little like saying that it's the 99%'s own fault that corporate greed controls our country and that they (the 99%) have the power to change it simply due to their sheer numbers-- the world doesn't work that way.

                              People (sometimes) are afraid to hire and even promote women in other jobs, because the woman may want to have a family. And if she does have a family, let's say three kids in three years... well that manager is thinking, "who's going to do her job when she takes family leave for four months? Oh, right, that would be me, the manager." That's equal to one full year of absence in three years. They don't care if it's their right. They care when it's their daughter, or their wife, but not so much when it's their employee-- at least in some of my experiences.

                              But then you also have companies that allow a high risk pregnant employee work from home because she is placed on a medical restriction and forced on bedrest for 5 months-- even to the point of allowing her to have her staff travel to her home to conduct weekly staff meetings. And still grant her her four months maternity leave, but that doesn't mean she's paid equally.

                              In my current company, all the executives are white males and all of their support staff are women except two. I worked for one of the largest retailers in the country an they had 11 executive vice presidents and all of them where white men except 1-- she was a black woman, a new hire at the time. It was a diverse company, but you didn't see the diversity in the upper management. There were 20+ Category Managers, but only two were women.

                              In every company I've ever worked for women had far more responsibilities than their male counterparts in the same position, and the expectations were higher, yet they still were paid less than men.

                              So, yeah, I can buy that there's a psychology at work here from a woman's point of view. We have to work harder, so we expect other women to work just as hard... They can't just be 'as good,' they have to be 'better than.'

                              These are general statements based on my own experience.

                              I've always felt that women are more accepted in writing than anywhere else. Of course my experience is very limited.

                              With respect to writing, it's sad to me that men think of woman as equals, yet women still feel a sense of inequality-- why else would they judge woman harder?

                              Just a thought.
                              Best.
                              FA4

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Answering Craig Mazin's Question: "What is that?" Scriptnotes Podcast 112

                                Originally posted by mgwriter View Post
                                I realize inequalities exist. I'm saying don't accept them as the norm....

                                IMHO, i think these inequalities start way sooner than when applying for jobs. The inequality starts when white little boys are taught and grow up believing they can have any job they want if they work hard enough regardless of skill and talent. Conversely little white girls and minorities are often encouraged to aspire to more subordinate roles. parents are often well meaning. When they see that most screenwriters are males, they may want their daughter to try for something more attainable. Things may start to change if we teach our daughters and minority children to truly believe (as white males do) that they can achieve anything they're willing to work hard for. And even though the numbers today don't bear it out, they are indeed equal.

                                Is my silly theory going to help our adult generation of female and minority writers right now?, probably not. But we can change tomorrow today.

                                I don't mean to sound so preachy, to give some context I was told by doctors in 2004 I had a few months to live. Instead of following up my first "real" option with a shitload of work, instead I spent the next 10 years in and out of hospitals trying to stay alive. .
                                Wow - I'm in awe of your bravery. Sending good thoughts your way.

                                As for sounding preachy -- I don't think you are at all. I think you're coming at it from a more conventional POV. That's why I took issue with what seemed like you placing the majority of responsibility on mothers in raising their sons to be more aware. It's far more complex than it seems. I for one have always thought we women have to change what's inside our own heads, first, and change grows outward from there. Then we don't have to rely only on lecturing our kids to teach them gender equality, we teach them by example.

                                Many of the changes you talk about are happening. It's simply not as obvious or as quick as we'd like. In this country we're talking something like 200 years of conditioned gender bias before the Women's Lib movement gained momentum in the 1960s. It was illogical thinking attitudes would change so quickly that by the 21st century all gender bias would be erased. It's a much slower evolution.

                                One of the things "inside our own heads" I would like to see change is this tendency for women to hold other women to a higher standard. Beyond the cited study, I think it's a valid point. I've done it myself and I've observed other women do it. The question is: why? I'm still thinking on that.

                                As for the workforce, women have long realized a century of institutionalized corporate bias has kept the glass ceiling firmly in place. Add to this, I think the era of the traditional mega-corp is capping out right now (all the signs are there) and over the next couple of decades many will disappear or be heavily restructured toward more of a flat organizational structure verses a traditional hierarchical structure.

                                Right now, there's been a shift in which women are starting their own entrepreneurial businesses at a higher rate than men (links below). Many of these women leave the workforce taking what they've learned to start businesses. (The internet has been a great opportunity for women.)

                                As a self-employed freelancer myself, in the last three, four, years, I've seen a jump in my entrepreneur clients who are women in their late 20s/early 30s. Prior, I had on average perhaps two or three female entrepreneurs as clients per year. That's jumped to six. What's also interesting is that half of these women clients are African American when in the past they were white. What I've found with these women, as their businesses grow, they tend to hire other women.

                                Another trend I see with male entrepreneurs around the same age (late 20s/early 30s) is the way they interact with me verses my male clients in their mid 40s and older. There's a stark difference which is blatantly obvious when I have a phone conference with one (younger) and an hour later with another (older).

                                The younger men interact with me in more of a partnership manner, "What do you think about ___? What's your take on ________?" (A number of them have started their businesses in partnership with their wives or girlfriends.)

                                In contrast, the older ones speak to me as a subordinate giving me tasks to do. Even when I try to suggest another, better way, based on my experience, I'm brushed off, "No, we'll do it this way." Code for "my way." Which makes me laugh because I'm the one who's been working in marketing communications all these years and they have not. Now that I think about it, there's a stark difference in the tone of their emails, too.

                                In fact, there's one (40-something CEO of a midsize company his grandfather started -- never worked anywhere but for his father and grandfather until he took over as CEO five years after graduating college) who irked me so much last week with his attitude I've decided not to contract with him anymore. Since I'm self-employed, I don't have to work for men who are more trouble than they're worth.

                                http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-...mens-movement/

                                http://www.cnbc.com/id/100727457

                                http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-...-entrepreneurs
                                Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X