Feminist office politics in military bureaucracies

[Jenab]

It can get surreal. A new lieutenant on his first assignment, shown his desk and given his first tasks to perform. He shares his office with several co-workers, maybe half of them women. He sits and studies whatever paperwork they put in front of him, trying to make sense of it, so he can figure out what he needs to do.

Then he hears a giggle behind him. Curious, he turns around and looks. Two women are studying him while whispering to each other and tittering in such a way that would have made him think he forgot to wear his pants to work if he didn't know better. The laughter isn't friendly; it's snide and provoking. He figures the women are simply being rude and will get over it soon. He turns back to his work.

But it doesn't stop. Pretty soon, every time he enters the office he hears a snort, or a spewing sound as though one or another of the females has barely managed to prevent herself from falling helplessly into laughter. This makes the lieutenant angry, but he goes to his desk and does his job.

Weeks go by. The snorts and the spewing mirth, the titters, whispers, "knowing" looks and giggles continue. Finally, the lieutenant asks the women to stop. They play dumb and ask him whatever is the problem? Maybe there is some grandstanding demonstration of warmth and friendship, which the lieutenant has no difficulty in perceiving to be a farce.

The provocations continue. After putting up with them for a month or two, the lieutenant seeks redress from a field grade officer: a major or a Lt. colonel, having an administrative position above everyone in his office. He wants the field grade officer to inquire as to why the women are being so obnoxious over such a long period. Unfortunately, the field grade officer does not want to be bothered. The field grade officer might even insinuate that the lieutenant is "making trouble" or ask why he has such a problem with a few looks and giggles?

You know how it goes from there. Sooner or later, the lieutenant will take matters into his own hands by confronting the women and accusing them of provoking him. Then one or more of those women will complain to the senior staff. The senior staff will come down like lightning and roar like thunder at the lieutenant, as though the problem were all of his doing. It will be reflected in his Officer Efficiency Report (OER) that he doesn't work well with others. His career is now in jeopardy.

He'll find himself isolated from all support. His friends, if he still has any, will distance themselves from him. The procedures that should have buffered him from these cunts simply will not work (for him). Assuming that he doesn't want to end up being court-martialed for defying orders, he will end up being a slavish helper to the female co-workers who provoked him.

In fact, he will not be able to contend against the authority of the janitor for the use of the hallway, not even if his job requires him to walk a section of the hall and the janitor has violated regulations that require him to mop it by halves (and wait to dry).

Jerry Abbott

[Jenab]

There's a kind of conspiracy in office politics in which the conspirators agree on who is to be their next victim, and then each of them "discovers" a reason to make a small complaint to the management.

In the perspective of the manager who is above the office in the company hierarchy, the focus of the trouble is the person against whom several small complaints have been made. He either does not know, or does not care, that the focus of the trouble is not the same as the cause of the trouble.

The trap, having been set up, is now triggered. The conspirators arrange for one of them to have a confrontation with the victim. The victim, not knowing that his reputation already has been compromised with the management, may take the initiative in referring the conflict to the manager in charge of his office.

You know how it goes from there. The conspirators win. The victim loses... his job. Evil triumphs over innocence. Why?

It is likely that the middle-level manager who decided the case is himself a survivor of office politics. He is, therefore, probably aware of the nature of the conspiracy simply because the pattern of the complaints and the set-up provocation will be familiar to him.

But when the time comes for him to act, he does not ask himself what is the right thing to do. Instead, he asks himself what is the easiest thing for him to do. Does he side with one against many, or with many against one? To someone already conditioned by office politics, making the choice is simple.

It is easier to replace one worker than several workers. The manager's own higher-ups will be displeased if he recommends that the conspirators be all fired for engaging in disruptive conspiracies. That is, the manager will be punished if his decision is based on truth. It is safer for the manager to pretend to believe the conspirators' lies and to recommend that the victim be fired for being disruptive.

Jerry Abbott

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

well those are interesting ruminations. I would say that a WN should employ all effective instrumentalities to advance his own rightful agenda and if that means learning to deal with these bitches than if that's what he's got to do, then do it and do it better than the next guy.

by hook or by crook. Women are easily swayed. The ones you cant win over, marginalize them before they marginalize you. Its like Chess.

[Napoleon]

Unfortunately I think the answer is to stay the hell out of the military, at least until things get better--and that's long overdue.