>>>>>One thing about women is that they may be less prone to play the power games, get into chest thumping contests, boast and generally do whatever PR males may do (my history in corporate environment is quite short - I was mostly in small shops, so I wouldn't know). While history has taught them some sneaky techniques, that's because they've learned that battlefield is not their field... which also means being skipped for promotions, raises and generally staying out of sight - which then, in turn, means staying low. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary may exist, but then there's anecdotal evidence for anything. In places where the corporate policy is created on the line stretching from the first hole to the last drink, you probably won't meet too many women in command positions.
>>>>
>>>>I do believe that you're talking about something a couple of decades out of date. Power games are now a co-ed sport.
>>>
>>>The term "co-ed" is an insult per se.
>>
>>Is it? Co-Educational is derogatory?
>
>"Educated WITH"... the guys who are getting educated. You, ladies, are let into the sand box TOO, WITH these guys. If they weren't there, we wouldn't really know how to call you. You are an afterthought. You need to have a different term applied so we'd know you aren't real students, you're only educated along with them.
>
>Find me one college for ladies which was converted into a mixed one, and where male students are now called co-eds, and I'll retract this.

I wasn't referring to the women as co-eds. I was referring to the situation as co-educational - ie - applies to both males and females. You shouldn't go assuming that what you might have meant by using a phrase is what everybody must mean by using it.