Joe,

First, you don't have to say that someone should hire you because you are a man. They are already hiring you because you are a man. See my posts on implicit gender bias or simply look at the ads for the Daily Journal's "top neutrals." What's missing from the picture?

Second, the comments about Thais in bar fights, negotiating with the Chinese, and about American vs. Indian negotiating styles are not mine, nor are they all Xan's. If you read Xan's post from which those references are drawn, you'll see that the comments about Thais, Americans and Indians come from conversations Xan had while she lived in China. As to her comments on negotiating with the Chinese, I think you'll see that they are grounded in experience.

The other issue - whether I can say women are better at some things than men are and men are better at some things than women are - is correctly aimed directly at me.

I have several reactions and comments. First, the research is pretty much in on the differences between men's and women's negotiation styles; on women's aversion to negotiation; and, on men's use of negotiation to obtain competitive advantage which accounts, at least in part, for the persistent wage gap between men and women. I didn't post a stereotype alert here, but if you're reading my blog, I'm assuming you (not everyone necessarily, but certainly you, Joe) know that I understand there are many shades of gray between the black of male and white of female stereotype (or the blue of male and pink of female stereotype).

I do believe groups who both historically have and presently continue to suffer from implicit bias should be given a "pass" when tossing a bone to a group that suffers low self-esteem (and economic hardship) as the result of negative cultural stereotypes.

I do not feel any shame whatsoever as a professional women who has spent 100% of her career in what was then and continues to be a privileged male dominated occupation (commercial litigation) to tell women what culturally generated and perhaps evolutionarily innate characteristics common to their gender make them as good (and sometimes better) negotiators as are men.

You are quite right that the people who are in power - white men for instance - do not get to exclude the people who are not in power. Nor do they get a pass on privileging themselves over those out of (or still catching up to) positions of power - economic, social, cultural, educational, and political.

In those areas in which men have historically suffered discrimination -- child custody matters for instance -- you could well "get a pass" on extolling certain male characteristics that would make men as good (or better) caretakers of infants and children as women.

When the day arrives when women possess as much economic power as men (when, for instance, I don't have to say that women lawyers make 60 cents on every male lawyer's dollar) I will stop talking to women about ways in which they can compete with men. Until that day, I'm afraid I'll continue to offend your sensibilities by suggesting that while men are better at some things than women (unscrewing the tops from jelly jars comes to mind) women are as good or better at many other traditionally male-oriented tasks and should pick up both "male" and "female" skills to compete effectively in male domains.

Thanks for your response, Joe. I appreciate your taking a second look at the issues raised here.

As a woman who spent her entire adult life practicing law in a male dominated profession, I do believe I'm uniquely positioned to help women who are not necessarily lawyers explore their reluctance to negotiate distributively and competitively.

I also wrote this post after reviewing the negotiation self-assessments of the women participating in last week's free introduction teleseminar which revealed the same type of negotiation discomfort among attendees about which Babcock and Laschever wrote so compellingly in Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide (http://www.womendontask.com/).

Though women MBA's (a group similar to women lawyers in competitive spirit and ambition) stand to lose $1 million in earnings throughout their careers by failing to negotiate their first post-grad salaries, you are probably right to suggest that women lawyers (and likely also women MBA's) are "outliers."

Be assured that I do not assume anything about any individual based upon statistical correlations. Statistics can predict what groups will do and give us a snapshot of trends. They cannot predict nor accurately represent the behavior, feelings, fears, joys, dreams, skills, talents, education and experience of any individual.

I make an effort not to bring any biases to my dealings with anyone. Nevertheless, as I said in the series on gender bias, even I - a woman who identifies more strongly with career than with family - continue to associate men more strongly with career and women more strongly with family (based upon the gender association test at Project Implicit).

I understand from the studies done to date that implicit bias is relatively easy to overcome when we are conscious of it and impervious to change when we are not. My intent in writing about these "toxic" issues is to raise consciousness, not to perpetuate stereotypes. To the extent I failed, I apologize, not only to you but to all my readers.

(and yes, I do sometimes feel competitive with "men" as a class, for which I can only plead human fallibility)