Relationship Advice From Ron Stout

Beware the Gender Gap in the Workplace!

Ron Stout — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:55:48 +0000

A menacing gender gap is present in the corporate workplace, and it is collectively costing companies hundreds of millions of dollars in top line revenue, operating expenses, and bottom line growth. Gender-related challenges impact sales behavior, management styles and effectiveness, co-worker interactions and performance, even customer care. the American workplace and workforce is at the highest level of risk. We need to bridge this insidious gender gap, and we need to do it immediately!

Women and men at work have unique psychographics, preferred working environments, diverse management styles, distinct selling and buying behaviors, and struggle to communicate effectively with each other while seemingly speaking two differnet languages. Both genders want and need help adjusting and adapting. But too often employees accept the status quo, merely existing in the prevailing culture while their productivity suffers, or quit without articulating the real reasons why. The workforce is changing dramatically and it needs to be fixed, but it will take both women and men to fix it.

Consider these stunning statistics:

Women make up 49.83% of the U.S. workforce and are projected to top fifty percent by the end of the calendar year 2009
57% of undergraduate college students are women
59% of graduate students are women
62% of college degrees are conferred to women
52% of corporate middle managers are women
3% of corporate CEOs are women and are projected to be 15% by 2020
70% of women earning six figures per year make more than their husbands or boyfriends
83% of consumer purchases in the U.S. are made by women
96% of financial decision-makers in homes with children are women
78% of the jobs lost since December 2007 have been to men

Anyone who still thinks the workplace is a man’s world, the boys’ club, or the exclusive province of successful men is not only grossly misinformed, but patently wrong. Still, while we are making great progress at creating a more egalitarian workforce, such a dramatic culture change is not without its painful side effects. For example, stress levels are at all time highs among women and men, women are experiencing record numbers of heart attacks and strokes, absenteeism is on the rise, employee turnover is increasing, and related healthcare costs continue to soar.

Human capital is the most value-changing asset in any organization, yet it is the one asset often least attended to. Shifts in its value can have a profound effect on organizational performance. Today, that very human capital is more at risk than ever before because men and women often find themsleves struggling to work effectively together. Bridging the gender gap in the workplace can have a powerfl impact on overall employee performance, and is paramount to maximizing productivity and achieving organizational success. In my next blog entry I’ll begin to share with you how we can fix this very serious and growing challenge.

No related posts.

Is Sex Really All We Need?

Ron Stout — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:30:28 +0000

What would happen if women were no longer around to tell men what to do? What would happen if men were no longer around to do what they were told? Would women meander about trying to find somebody to manage while men meandered about trying to find someone not to listen to? And would they miss each other? Women might miss men more than they’d be missed by men. Guys would be fine as long as they had a beer, a newspaper, some toenail clippers, and the remote control. But women might not fare too well in a world sans men, with no one around to supervise. And if a man said something in the forest and a woman wasn’t there to hear him, would he still be wrong?

Woud everyone be better off if women and men really did live totally separate lives? There woud be no more battle of the sexes. No more gender stereotyping. No more feminist movement. No more male chauvinist pigs. No more Spin the Bottle, Twister, or sock hops either. Of course that would mean the bon vivant box office leading men would be rendered redundant too. No more Brad Pitt, George Clooney or Pierce Brosnan. Oceans 1-47 and the enitre James Bond series would likely cease to exist. And imagine Clark Gable in such a world. I guess he’d have no choice but to declare, “Frankly Frank, I don’t give a damn!” Oh the slings and arrows of dramatic dialogue.

But what about sex? Who would men and women be attracted to? Would everyone simply become homosexuals? And what about marriage? Maybe women would marry other women and men would tie the knot with other men. Such a coupling might actually work, especially if one of them had full dental coverage.

There could be some sort of heterosexual vacation retreat destination where eager partipants could meet for a lttle pleasure in the boudior. A trendy travel agency could offer eight-days/seven-nights sexy vacation packages to Horneyville. Each trip could include a complimentary split of champagne with chocolate-covered strawberries and a package of ribbed Trojans in every room, all for just $6,969 per person based on double occupancy.

Or could men and women have no real need for sex anymore? Maybe babies really could be delivered by a stork. Better yet, each species could continue in perpetuity by simply ordering the next generation online. In today’s high-tech, high-speed, I-can-do-anything-you-can-do world, if sex were no longer a factor in relationships, would women and men really need each other anymore for anything?

No related posts.

Couldn’t Women At Least Offer To Pay Sometimes?

Ron Stout — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:34:22 +0000

Why aren’t women just as concerned about achieving equality regarding spending their money as they are about earning it? Guys know the long-established gender role of women not earning money has changed. In fact, not only do women earn, among those who earn six-figures per year, seventy percent of them earn more money than their husbands or boyfriends. So why don’t they ante up when they’re out on a date?

Men know women are earning money, yet most men actually still want to pay. So why hasn’t this particular gender role pulled a one-eighty like so many other ones have? While sex type is genetic, we’re born either male or female, gender roles are learned. And speaking of education, that particular stereotype has changed too. Today women make up fifty-seven percent of undergraduate students in colleges and universities in the United States, and that statistic jumps to fifty-nine percent in graduate schools. So while women are better educated than ever, and earning more money than ever, why don’t they ever fork over some scratch to help out?

Men really wish women would at least offer to pay sometimes, even if only every fifth or tenth time out with a guy would be nice. But al least make the gesture. It sends a message to men that they are appreciated for their generosity and that women respect the investment the guys are making. If women paid for every date, every tropical vacation together, and the many items purchased from the mall when they went shopping with their man for just one year, they’d see how many thousands, often tens of thousands, it really costs. And it could have a positive effect on a girl’s sex life too! A girl may get to first base quickly if she pays once in a while, and she’ll hit a grand slam home run if she just offers every now and then.

Single Women Refuse to Pay On a Date!

June Cleaver Has a Briefcase?

Ron Stout — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:49:03 +0000

Why do so many women want figuratively to strap on the strap-on and smoke a stogie with the guys? Women are wearing suits and ties to the office, sending men flowers, and have their own mortgages. Meanwhile, men are flight attendants, nurses, and administrative assistants. Guys are waxing, using skin bronzers and getting facials, manicures, and pedicures. Girls are getting tatoos and wearing Jockey brand underwear to bed.

And now women are in charge at the office too? June Cleaver has a briefcase? For a lot of guys, having a woman for a boss can be as mortifying as tapping the shoulder of a platinum-blonde babe at the office Christmas party, only to see her turn around and introduce himself as Allan from accounting! A lot of men in today’s workforce have never had to report to a woman and manyof them don’t want to start now.

Don’t most men already have a woman for a boss at home anyway? Isn’t one woman-boss enough? How much humility is a man supposed to suffer? Mutliple women telling guys what to do could really mess with their heads. If they’re called Honey-Do’s at home, would that make them You’d-Better-Do’s at work?

But honestly guys, what is so wrong with having a woman for a boss? I’ve had three bosses who were women and, with the exception of one particular boss I had who was a man, I’d put them ahead of every other boss I’ve ever had. Can’t men change such a perspective? And is it only the guys over fifty who really have a problem with women being in charge? Isn’t it time we bring these guys into the twenty-first century?

Now that I think of it, women don’t want guys waxing their underarms and shaving their legs, and guys don’t want women not to. But maybe that can change too! What do you think?

No related posts.

“Why can’t I get a man???”

Ron Stout — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:59:25 +0000

There are forty million single women over forty in the United States and if I didn’t know better I’d swear thirty-nine million of them keep asking the very same question, “Why can’t I get a man?”

Cindy, 42, a single and successful banking executive in metropolitan Dallas, Texas describes herself as an intelligent, powerful, successful, well-educated, self-sufficient professional woman. Yet she tells me she can never get past two dates with men and wonders why? “The first date seems to go okay, but when they see my house and my car and my MBA framed on the wall of my study they seem put off by it all. Then they ask me about my job and when they find out I earn six figures per year they say their goodbyes and leave. I think I’m intimidating them.”

A lot of women make this mistake. They assume men are intimidated when more often than not the guys have a completely different perspective. As part of my ongoing research for the Ten Innocent Mistakes Women Make that Drive Good Men Away, I interviewed one hundred single men over forty and asked them about Cindy’s particular situation. Let it suffice here to say that intimidation should not be confused with utilitarianism. Most men are not intimidated by women like Cindy, but simply see no “male” role to fill with her.

While sex type is genetic, we’re born either male or female, gender roles are learned. Men have been taught to assume they will fulfill three key roles in life relative to women: Provide, Protect, and Procreate. When a man hears that a woman is, “Intelligent, powerful, successful, well-educated, self-sufficient and professional,” and then sees her home, car, wardrobe, and healthy bank account, he assumes she can take care of all of that on her own, sees no role for himself, and simply moves on. It’s as though he reasons, “Well, it’s obvious she doesn’t need me for anything. I’ll go see if I can find someone else who does.”

Women shouldn’t confuse intimidation with utilitarian need. Likewise, men should better understand that women can still need or want them for reasons other than the three P’s. What do you think?

No related posts.

Her Money Isn’t Our Money Too?

Ron Stout — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:00:32 +0000

A funny thing happened to Kevin one day last week. “I surprised my wife with a fancy new cell phone. But when I gave it to her, she said, ‘You didn’t actually pay for this, did you?’ Before I could even respond she barked back, ‘If I had known that, I would have bought it myself, because I don’t want our money being spent like that!’ What does she mean by “our” money anyway? She works … isn’t her money our money, too? She never said that kind of stuff when we were dating! How did my money become “our” money the day we married, but her money is still “her” money?”

When it comes to spending money in a relationship, some couples reach agreement easily while others can be as far apart as Donny Osmond and Amy Winehouse writing their wedding vows. Kevin’s wife Christine’s concern for the family budget notwithstanding, she may need to be reminded that we live in a new millennium. Since she also works and earns money, her money should be family, better yet “our” money too.

I contacted Christine by phone and she confirmed for me what she had already told Kevin. “I’ve worked hard for ten years,” she stated emphatically. “I’ve earned my money, it’s my money, and I should be able to spend it on anything I want. He’s the man. His money is supposed to be for both of us. That’s the way it’s always been, and that’s the way it should be!”

Does this stream of logic represent the way most liberated women think? Maybe I missed an important memo. Forgive me if I approach this logically, but I was under the impression that women have been laboring for the past forty years to change the way things have always been. Apparently, the more things change, the more some things tend to stay the same. When Christine stated she would have bought the cell phone with her money, she apparently sought to exercise control over two sources of income simultaneously, her own and her husband’s.

What would cause Christine to seek such control of the finances? Why would she so casually assume that the money she makes be hers to spend as she wishes, while all of Kevin’s earnings be carefully allocated for the family, each proposed expense rigidly scrutinized? From where does this apparent sense of entitlement originate? Is it fair? What do you think?

No related posts.

Sotomayor is a Racist?

Ron Stout — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:53:33 +0000

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” Yeah, yeah, yeah, and blah, blah, blah. We’ve heard about this ad nauseam. Finally, Senator Lindsey Graham had the balls to say what others only think, that as a white man, had he said he would more often than not reach a better conclusion than an Hispanic woman they would have, “Had my head.” No doubt he would have been forced to resign like others before him as precedent has been established for such already.
So why isn’t Ms. Sotomayor being forced to resign? Is there a double standard at play? A woman, in this case Hispanic, can get away with what a white man cannot? Absolutely a double standard is at play. That’s a given that only the most ignorant or those in denial would dare dispute. And unquestionably, it is wrong.

But here’s the point. Non-whites continue to say that such an inequity is okay because white men have held the power for far too long and deserve it. WRONG! Racism is racism, without exception. Don’t give me that trite graduate school academic explanation either; that power plus prejudice equals racism and since only the white men have held the power only they can be racist. Anyone who disrespects another’s race is being racist, period, end of sentence.

No one should be given a free pass to disparage the race of another. We’re long overdue to stop with this sophomoric ethnocentric behavior. It only serves to demonstrate our fear of anyone whose skin tone doesn’t match our own. We’re all the same color on the inside. When will we mature to the point where we can look past one’s outward appearance and begin to admire the soul?

And is there a difference between disrespecting another’s race and exercising one’s right to state their opinion? Given that possibility, is Sotomayor really a racist? Did she truly disparage another race, or just another gender? Better still, was she claiming Hispanic superiority or was she merely stating her opinion?

It is often said that opinions are just like assholes, everybody’s got one. Well, I would imagine Ms. Sotomayor is sporting the latter just like the rest of us. Shouldn’t she be entitled to the former too? But then again, shouldn’t anyone, including a white guy, be afforded the same? What do you think?

No related posts.

The Third Date Phenomenon

Ron Stout — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:51:50 +0000

Everybody knows about the Third Date Phenomenon, right? It’s sex on the third date or there is no fourth date. But fifty percent of women surveyed said they want Mr. Wiggly even before date No. 3. These women actually want sex by date No. 2, but if it doesn’t happen by the third date, they figure it’s time to move on. They assume the guy’s abstinence is hiding a secret such as, “He must be gay.” I call these women PP’s, the Proactive Partners.

The other fifty percent of women say for them the first three dates are actually the ones used to hold the guys off before letting them pull Mr. Wiggly out. They’re willing to have sex on the third date, but they believe in taking the “I’m not that kind of girl” approach, at least in the beginning. These are the women I call the RP’s, the Reactive Partners.

But what do the guys think? Do they believe in the Third Date Phenomenon? The answer of course is they believe in any phenomenon that will get them sex. But sex between a man and a woman is like and electrical plug and a wall socket. The plug goes into the socket … it’s not the other way around. I’ve never seen a wall socket jump on a plug, but I can see where it could be a real problem for the plug!

As a result, most guys prefer an RP girl over a PP girl. Imagine a guy picks up a girl for a first date. Later at her place, she jumps his bones on the couch, plays the French version of post office for about fifteen seconds, then aggressively jettisons her britches and starts to climb aboard. But he notices his space shuttle isn’t assuming the usual blast-off position just yet, so he kills the countdown. “Houston, we have a problem!” The guy’s plug is simply not accustomed to being jumped by a wall socket it barely knows. He thought it was supposed to be the other way around. He thought he would be slipping his plug into her socket as soon as he could grab hold of the stiff cord!

In one study, ninety five percent of the men surveyed said they want a PP girl. Only five percent said they preferred an RP girl. What about you ladies? Are you a PP or an RP girl? And do you believe in the Third Date Phenomenon? Guys, who do you prefer, a PP or an RP girl? And is the Third Date Phenomenon real? What do you think?

No related posts.

It Was a Man’s World

Ron Stout — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:52:45 +0000

There is a simple explanation as to why women expect men to pay every time the waiter delivers the check. They think it’s just tradition at work. It dates back thousands of years to the days when Igor, Egor, and Ogor, the prehistoric versions of Moe, Larry, and Curly, set out before sun-up with visions of brontosaurus baby-back ribs dancing in their heads. They encountered Brute the Bronto, who salivated at the sight of three hairy dudes in loincloths running around wildly waving clubs in the air, and it instantly became a case of survival of the fittest. The three cavemen wanted to win the battle because a) they were all hungry b) they wanted to get laid that night and knew they could exchange provisions for sex, and c) the Flintstones Burger Barn drive-through was closed at that time of the morning.

The women stayed behind, raised the children, and tended to the chores needed to keep the cave in order. When the men returned to the village with their spoils, the women skinned the ribs, stuffed the head, and prepared the meals, while the men read the sports section of the Prehistoric Sun-Times and sat gazing at the fire. Sound familiar? A few millennia ago dinner was freshly killed meat served in a cave; today it is Chinese take-out on granite counter tops or Surf and Turf for two with a platinum card on a white tablecloth. It’s the modern day version of the old hunter/gatherer dynamic.

But spending money isn’t a function of gender; it is a medium of exchange. Men traditionally paid for dates, and everything else for that matter, because they were typically the only ones working and earning money. But being born male doesn’t mean that by default one is required to pay for everything. Women need to accept that a penis no longer equals a paycheck. Now that they’re earning their own money, they can pay for dinner and a movie sometimes too. It’s time they ante up!

It was a man’s world, but men need to wake up and realize that their egos are costing them money. As long as they continue to believe that the thickness of their wallets is directly proportional to their success in the dating game, women will continue to let them believe it. And while the guys are busy constantly measuring their manhood, the girls will continue to expand their already swelling bank accounts. And people say size is no indication of performance. What do you think? What are your QCP’s? (Questions, Comments, or Protests)

No related posts.

Get In the Foxhole Damn It – You’re a Girl!!

Ron Stout — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:51:18 +0000

Women are operating from more double standards than Barack Obama’s healthcare proposal. As but one example, women are entering the military in increasing numbers but they are specifically not assigned to infantry, tank, or submarine duty. Why not?

David, twenty, has already been on the front line during two tours of duty to Iraq. He asks the same question. “Why can’t women serve with us on the front line? Since I was in junior high school my parents and teachers have always told me girls can do anything boys can do. Okay, if a girl can do anything I can do, why doesn’t she have to fight on the front line too?”

His buddy Tom agrees. “I keep hearing about how women don’t need men around, that they can do anything any man can do. Okay, then they should jump into the foxhole right next to the men damn it. If we’re equal by God, then we’re equal.”

And Scott doesn’t mince any words when he describes how he feels. “I’ll be very blunt. I’m tired of women bitching about not being treated equally all of the time, and then bitching again when someone says they ought to have to fight on the front line in a war. I say if they can run a company or play a sport just like a man, they can fire an AK-47 (machine gun) just like one too. The gun doesn’t know the difference between who’s shooting it, it just fires when the trigger is pulled.”

The role of soldier on the front line, and with it the expected risk of traumatic stress and potential loss of life, has long been considered a valorous endeavor, a masculine undertaking, and the ultimate test of manhood. But women are just as tough as men, right? Understandably, men like David, Tom, and Scott may not appreciate the double standard at play when it comes to the battle field any more than they can believe that a thin, shapely, sexy feminine beauty looking like the traditional woman — can kick butt like the traditional man. But if she can, they believe she can do it right next to them in the foxhole. Obama can have his healthcare double standards, but maybe it’s time to eliminate this antiquated gender role difference and make the military more homogeneous. Sounds like the guys want the girls to “woman-up” and get their asses in the fox holes where they belong!

What do you think?

No related posts.