Chairman? Chairperson?

dfcatch · Mar 9, 2012

pagingjoan said:
You should get out more!

And, adding a second data point to PF's above, I hold several such positions, and would never use the term "Chairman", either for myself or for a Chair of either gender.

Mind you, I thought that this argument had been done and dusted years ago, and that "Chair" had been accepted as common parlance.
Haven't had to debate it for a moment, in a long time.

Seems I should get out more, too!
Or into different circles.

Pagingjoan - would you be offended if someone referred to you as "chairman" or "madam chairman"?

Or would you just take it in your stride?

(acknowledging that you personally simply use the term "chair")

pagingjoan · Mar 9, 2012

dfcatch said:
Pagingjoan - would you be offended if someone referred to you as "chairman" or "madam chairman"?

Or would you just take it in your stride?

(acknowledging that you personally simply use the term "chair")

The titles of the relevant positions in all organisations with which I am currently associated are "Chair", and that's how the person occupying the position is addressed - if we are being formal, and referred to in all correspondence. So the situation simply does not arise.

If I try to picture a scenario where it might occur, I can't help coming up with an image of a "gentleman of a certain age". Sexist response? No. Just can't imagine anyone on a Board these days using the term, so my image dates back some years to a time when the matter was still contentious.

Would I be offended? No, not offended, as such. But I confess that I would be slightly annoyed at the out-dated usage - and, more importantly, the assumptions that appear to go with it.

Does that help?

turtlemichael · Mar 9, 2012

dfcatch said:
Not preferring "Chair-Princess"?

Giggle of the day. Have had a few chairmen who would qualify for that epithet.

straitman · Mar 9, 2012

Princess Fiona said:
As a data point I am "The Chair" of several committees and subcommittees. Not in the least bit bothered if " chairman " were to be used

dfcatch said:
Not preferring "Chair-Princess"?

... 'Chair Princess Ogre'

dfcatch · Mar 9, 2012

pagingjoan said:
The titles of the relevant positions in all organisations with which I am currently associated are "Chair", and that's how the person occupying the position is addressed - if we are being formal, and referred to in all correspondence. So the situation simply does not arise.

If I try to picture a scenario where it might occur, I can't help coming up with an image of a "gentleman of a certain age". Sexist response? No. Just can't imagine anyone on a Board these days using the term, so my image dates back some years to a time when the matter was still contentious.

Would I be offended? No, not offended, as such. But I confess that I would be slightly annoyed at the out-dated usage - and, more importantly, the assumptions that appear to go with it.

Does that help?

Fair enough - I think it's in the "eye of the beholder" so to speak - as to being offended or not.

You've made me think hard of anecdotes - the first two that pop into my head:

1/ I was seated next to Margaret Jackson at a luncheon a few years ago, and the woman on the other side of me was accompanied by her young daughter. The daughter asked who Margaret worked for - to which the woman replied "she's the chairman of Qantas". I didn't question the phrase at the time, nor do I question it now. Margaret's own bio states she's the "Chairman of Flexigroup" and was the "Chairman of Qantas".

2/ Quite a few AICD functions that I've been at have had speakers / presenters that have been women (and a couple with "gentlemen of a certain age"

), and I can't recall any where the women have not introduced themselves / referred to themselves as anything other than Chairman (or written as such in their bios).

And I'm talking in very recent history - not 10-20 years ago.

So I personally see it as an individual thing (both person and organisation).

But (with the exception of this thread) - i don't see it as contentious, or an issue whatsoever.

pagingjoan · Mar 9, 2012

dfcatch said:
<snip>
But (with the exception of this thread) - i don't see it as contentious, or an issue whatsoever.

Certainly contentious here!

And certainly an issue, juding by the exchanges.

Not an issue for me, personally.
Chair, it is.
No debate.

Nobody offended by that term, surely?
So no issue.

medhead · Mar 9, 2012

dfcatch said:
IMHO - I'm yet to meet any female chairs that have an issue with it. And I think these highly successful women (who can take on the best of the men) would be highly offended by your suggestion that they "readily agree because they don't want men thinking they are 'annoying'".

Of course, Quark is a highly successful woman, in her field of endeavour. So perhaps one for the dataset.

As for being offended by the suggestion mentioned. I would be surprised if they would be offended at that suggestion. It makes perfect sense to me that women (anyone, in fact) who get to the top know how to play the politics. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that they won't have certain arguments because it's not worth the bother and because they know the topic of discussion the next time those on the other side of the argument are at the pub.

dfcatch · Mar 9, 2012

medhead said:
Of course, Quark is a highly successful woman, in her field of endeavour. So perhaps one for the dataset.

As for being offended by the suggestion mentioned. I would be surprised if they would be offended at that suggestion. It makes perfect sense to me that women (anyone, in fact) who get to the top know how to play the politics. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that they won't have certain arguments because it's not worth the bother and because they know the topic of discussion the next time those on the other side of the argument are at the pub.

Yes - one for the data set

I have to disagree on your second point though.

I agree on the "playing the game", but successful women aren't at the top of their game in business because they kept their mouth shut and didn't take on the blokes. In fact in many cases I would suggest the very opposite.

I don't think many women get to the top by shutting up, not challenging anything, and just sitting back and agreeing with the blokes.

Despite my opposition to political correctness and Quotas, 777 is right, there still exist challenges for women to compete on an equal playing field. As it was said - there still are views held by "gentlemen of a certain age".....

I posit that these successful women at the top of their fields have achieved such success by virtue of challenging the views of their male colleagues - not in spite of it.

EDIT: unless you're talking literally about Politics - in which case everything you said - I agree with.

medhead · Mar 9, 2012

dfcatch said:
Yes - one for the data set

I have to disagree on your second point though.

I agree on the "playing the game", but successful women aren't at the top of their game in business because they kept their mouth shut and didn't take on the blokes. In fact in many cases I would suggest the very opposite.

I don't think many women get to the top by shutting up, not challenging anything, and just sitting back and agreeing with the blokes.

Despite my opposition to political correctness and Quotas, 777 is right, there still exist challenges for women to compete on an equal playing field. As it was said - there still are views held by "gentlemen of a certain age".....

I posit that these successful women at the top of their fields have achieved such success by virtue of challenging the views of their male colleagues - not in spite of it.

EDIT: unless you're talking literally about Politics - in which case everything you said - I agree with.

Small p, politics. I didn't say they don't challenge the views of their colleagues. I just think they (well everyone at the top really) choose their battles and one battle they wouldn't have is "chairman". That's not incompatible with what you're saying here.

dfcatch · Mar 9, 2012

medhead said:
Small p, politics. I didn't say they don't challenge the views of their colleagues. I just think they (well everyone at the top really) choose their battles and one battle they wouldn't have is "chairman". That's not incompatible with what you're saying here.

Is it choosing their battles? Or is it simply a non-issue for them?

straitman · Mar 9, 2012

This is amusing :!:

dfcatch · Mar 9, 2012

straitman said:
This is amusing :!:

Point taken

I've had my fun stirring my friends for one day

I promise self - exclusion for at least 12 hours

…

Right - off to tackle the goats in the Priority Boarding lane !

medhead · Mar 9, 2012

dfcatch said:
Is it choosing their battles? Or is it simply a non-issue for them?

If they don't rise to the bait because they don't want people moaning about them down the pub, then it is choosing their battles. Really either way it is the same outcome, so not sure how to form any judgement about which is which.

JohnK · Mar 9, 2012

Re: Virgin to open exclusive lounge for high yield VIPs

Why the need to change?

Why not change Manly as well? And while we are it manequin does not sound right either. And manuals should really go as most "men" do not need them. How about prime minister?

Political correctness, or as my brother would say left wing liberals, has played a major influence in ruining this country and the world is not that far behind.

straitman · Mar 9, 2012