American industry is run by husbands…hence

I work in corporate America. I have so for a long time.  I will say, with certainty, that most corporate men of a certain organizational level are heterosexual and married.  Is that a bad thing to say?  It could be, but truth trumps feelings (in my world) which is perhaps one of the delineations between the Right and the Left today. Do you map your actions according to emotive demands or to objective reality?

Most men of a certain corporate class are married to women. Women, in the consummate wife role, assume that self-fulfilling script character which nags and denigrates her husband’s personal habits and character traits. Women are generally a bothered gender.  They fix and they fret. They complain, and their husbands, if trained well, which they are if the goal is to pacify the marriage, ask “how high” every time the wife expresses dissatisfaction or displeasure. It’s the way of the married world.

Once a man is enmeshed in a husband role for a number of years, he becomes a trained monkey.

Dutiful and considerate of his wife’s capricious demands, this role shapes his reaction to women in the wild, one that most likely was kindled by his mother. In essence, a class of man who possesses some measure of institutional power in the workplace retains a “little boy” persona when confronted with a certain type of woman.

I’ve known of various males in the managerial class who are married to women. These men are in positions where they are able to command others to varying degrees of “direct report.”  I’ve also known of certain women in the same realm who assume a quasi-wifely role: nagging, hounding, hectoring, and as a result, they trigger the little boy in a suit to play the simpering servant.

Women wield much more power in the work environment due to this social dynamic.  Once again, we can never assert women have power in a masculine environment where it’s trendily popular to ascribe a traditional and very unfair patriarchal power structure in condemnatory terms.  To question the accepted paradigm of female victimization is ill-advised.  I’ve witnessed at least one particularly bitter, frumpy and ill-tempered matronly lady who receives very timely responses to her emails (from the married men) as opposed to a male peer who needs to follow up several times to get answers or responses.

Men treat men as badly as they treat women, on the whole, when accounting for chasms in social class. The greatest gender inequality is really an inequality of social class. The people who get the shaft are those in social classes and systemic partitions that represent the lower rungs of the social structure. That’s the problem with modern social victimization narratives. They complicate the human psyche too much to matter. Inequality is a function of possessions and status, not color, gender or incapacities. All that matters are possessions and status, or in the absence of such, the positioning to realistically attain such.  Proxy for positioning is youth, attractiveness, breeding, fitness; you might not have a cent to your name but status can be disguised if you were genetically gifted with the appropriate familial heritage.

Or if you’re a middle-aged female scold in the corporacracy.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments