I am not a woman. I want to be very clear about that. Though some of the blog items would seem to contradict that, it's a fact.

But, since I work in an industry (employee communications) dominated by women, I try to keep up on the latest news and information about women issues in the workplace. And I can tell you that there is big news on the gender-discrimination front. Ready for it? Here it is:

Women have it tougher in business than men.

Yep . . . we’ve always suspected it, and now we have proof--in the form of a new study from Catalyst, an organization that calls itself a “nonprofit that studies workplace issues pertaining to women.”

The study has a good, grabby title:

“Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don’t.”

The study—which, based on the title, would seem to be telling women everywhere to hang it up and go have babies or travel the world—was based on interviews with senior executives in the U.S. and Europe. One of its many important revelations was this:

“Women who act according to gender stereotypes aren’t considered strong enough leaders, while those who go against type are viewed as too tough.”

Now, what the hell does that mean? What does it mean to “act according to gender stereotypes?” What, exactly, are the gender stereotypes for women in the workplace?

Does it mean that if you bring your knitting into a big meeting with the top brass, you won’t be taken seriously?

Does it mean that if you break down and start crying the minute someone raises his voice, that you’ll be passed over for promotions?

What, exactly, are these established female stereotypes? And who the hell established them? Are women supposed to be nicer? Softer? More creative? Not as numbers-oriented? Flakier? More emotional?

What complete and utter bullshit.

I’ve met thousands and thousands of women in the workplace—clients, coworkers, friends, seminar attendees, etc.—and I can’t think of any one single set of stereotypes that would apply to all of them. In fact, I can’t think of one single stereotype that could apply to all of them.

I’ve met likeable, charming bulldogs who could chew up any man and spit him out before they even have their first cup of coffee.

I’ve met super intelligent head cases who would sit quietly at their desk and weep when having a bad day.

I’ve met hard charging career women who make Hilary Clinton look like Betty Crocker, and laid back coworkers who make Hilary Clinton look like Martha Stewart.

I’ve met numbers crunchers and creative types, emotionally strong women and basket cases. I’ve met women who relish the challenges in the C Suite . . . and others who just want to do their job and go home.

Oh . . . one more thing. I’ve met men who fit into all those categories, too! I’ve met ball breakers and back stabbers, dynamos and duds. I've met men who act like women, and women who act like men. I've met men who act like women acting like men, for that matter.

But it’s not a man or a woman thing. It’s a person thing. So to do a “study” that first asks you to accept a standard list of gender-specific stereotypes is starting with a flawed approach, don’t you think?

The other big "revelation" from this “study” was this:

“Women who demonstrate assertiveness are perceived as competent, although often are not personable or well liked.”

Well, sure. That’s probably true. Except when it’s not. Are there assertive women who are not personable or well liked? I’m sure there are. And I’m equally sure that there are assertive, competent women who are personable and well liked. And there are assertive women who aren’t very competent. And competent women who aren’t very assertive.

And guess what? There are men who fall into all of those categories, too! Have you ever met an assertive, competent man whom you didn’t find personable, and whom you didn’t like much? Of course you have. Plenty of them, I’ll bet.

Of course, if you really want to get to the bottom of this kind of “study,” you only have to look at the tagline of the organization that did it. As mentioned earlier, Catalyst, the folks who did the study, call themselves a “a nonprofit that studies workplace issues pertaining to women.”

Now, what would the future of Catalyst be if they came back with studies that showed that there are no real workplace issues pertaining only to women?

Anyone with a sense of humor likes The Onion, the satirical, wildly funny “newspaper,” right?

But we may not need it for much longer. Why? Because the real news is starting to read like The Onion!

I noticed this the other day, when I was going through my weekly routine of gathering six or seven newspapers and magazines, taking them to El Jardin’s, and reading them over six or seven margaritas.

And as I was reading, I noticed something happening. Something other than the margaritas kicking in, I mean.

Time and time again I would be reading a regular news story, and it would be as ridiculous as something you would read in The Onion.

I’ve started saving these items, and will start running them out here in a regular, ongoing feature titled: The Real World Meets The Onion. Here is the first one:

This article was in Parade Magazine. It was a profile of rock star Jon Bon Jovi. The entire article was about how, despite his enormous fame, Bon Jovi has never ventured far from his New Jersey, blue-collar roots--either physically, spiritually, or emotionally.

This is a tough case to make, seeing as how he had feathered hair that hung down to his ass for most of his career, and the fact that he changed his name to "Jon Bon Jovi."

But never mind the irony of the story as a whole. The part of the piece that really jumped out at me was when the "author" described Jon's growing up, and where he got his "bedrock," blue-collar values:

“His bedrock values were formed in Sayreville, 20 miles north of his mansion, where he grew up as the oldest of three sons. [His parents] John Bongiovi Sr. and Carol Sharkey met when both were in the Marine Corps in the late 1950s. ‘Tough woman. Strong woman. Independent woman,’ Jon says of his mother.”

Now what do you think would be the next line in the story? Well, in a real news story, we would learn that Jon’s mom launched her own waste disposal business, and battled the mob to establish her independence. Or maybe she didn’t even have a job, instead choosing to sacrifice everything to raise her children. Or maybe she ran for a local political position, and used her platform to improve the community.

But no. Here is the very next line about this “Tough, Strong, Independent” woman:

“After leaving the Corps, she was a Playboy Bunny in New York City.”

Ha! Isn’t that straight out of The Onion? You can’t write satire that well! The only difference is that in The Onion, they would have continued the quote, with Bon Jovi saying something like:

“She was the Toughest, Strongest, most Independent Playboy Bunny in the whole club. Her little tail on her uniform was always fuzzy, and her ears were the straightest ones in the whole place.”

And we’re not done yet with this piece! Reading on, we learn a little about Bon Jovi’s blue-collar, tough father:

“John Sr. was going to follow his father into the plumbing business, but Carol talked him into going to hairdressing school instead.”

Ha again! Here is this guy, this supposed tough-guy, blue-collar rocker, and his dad’s a hairdresser and his mom is a Playboy bunny! And he’s bragging about it as if he doesn’t see the irony!

And the very next quote from Bon Jovi is priceless:

“My parents were firm believers that anything you want to have, you can have,” he says. “That was one great gift they gave us—a sense of optimism.”

That is funnier than anything I’ve read in The Onion in a long time. Again, the only thing the story was missing was the extension of the quote:

“My mom told me early on, that if I was willing to work hard and believe in myself, I could be anything. I could be a Playboy Bunny, like her. Or I could be a hairdresser, like Pop. Or I could even be a hairdresser who does the hair for the Playboy Bunnies. Or a Playboy Bunny who does hair on the side. The world was my oyster, and my parents made sure I knew that.”

Is it just me, or is the real news media going to eventually put The Onion out of business.

Oh, the joys of global communication.

It seems like lately, every time I do a seminar, I hear another horror story about some misunderstanding or miscommunication related to communicating with people from a different area of the world.

The latest happened in Chicago, at my Integrating Print and Online seminar. I was having the lamb sandwich at Bandera (best sandwich in the city; if it’s not on the menu, order it anyway, and they’ll make it for you) with a good group of communicators, when one woman told me the following story:

She was working with a male Japanese executive who hates computers because he thinks that only secretaries use them. This man also thinks that any kind of typing is secretarial work, so he never uses e-mail, as he considers it to be beneath him.

But, since he lives in Japan and my communicator friend lives in the Midwest, and since they have to work together, it was kind of important for him to use e-mail to communicate. So she started coaching him.

“I told him, ‘You’re what we call a hunter and a pecker,’” she told me. “You hunt around with your two index fingers, and peck out words very slowly. And that’s okay!”

Well, the guy did his best. His first e-mail came across some weeks later, and it was filled with mistakes and typos. But to the guy’s credit, at least he tried. And he also apologized for not being very good at e-mail. The last line of the e-mail read, word for word:

“I’m sorry I’m such a pecker.”

Ha ha!! Can you imagine what’s happening over there in Japan? This guy is going into meetings and telling everyone who will listen:

“When it comes to e-mail, I’m a real pecker!” And,

“I don’t like to type, which makes me a huge pecker!” And,

“When I told my American colleague that I didn’t like to type, she called me a pecker! Now I have to get better!”

And all those Japanese people are probably thinking, “Wow. Those Americans are tough. They don’t fool around.”

My whole career, I’ve been waiting for just one overblown, self-important executive to admit that he’s a pecker. This woman is living my dream.

How many times, as a corporate communicator, have you put a quote in a newsletter, article, or press release . . . knowing that it sounded like complete bullshit?

How many times have you put those little wiggly “ marks around something when you know that nobody is going to believe that someone actually said it?

Plenty of times, probably. Such is the lot of the corporate communicator.

I was thinking about this the other day while I was reading The Reader, Chicago’s venerable alternative newspaper. There’s a columnist in the Reader, Michael Miner, who writes about the local journalism scene. Miner is a must-read if you’re a writer in this town, in my opinion.

Well, he recently did a short piece about how, after almost 40 years of continuous ownership, the Reader is being sold to a company called Creative Loafing. And, of course, Miner had to quote the CEO of Creative Loafing (and Miner's new boss), a fella by the name of Ben Eason.

Here was the beginning of the quote:

“We have built our Creative Loafing brand by offering valuable content to people who influence public opinion and public tastes in culturally vibrant markets," says Creative Loafing's CEO, Ben Eason . . .”

Now, at that point, I was sorely disappointed in Miner. That isn’t a quote you expect from an alternative newspaper. It’s a bullshit press release quote that some flunky wrote . . . not something the big guy actually said.

But I should have known Miner wouldn’t let his new boss get away with it. Here is how the quote looked in its entirety:

“We have built our Creative Loafing brand by offering valuable content to people who influence public opinion and public tastes in culturally vibrant markets," says Creative Loafing's CEO, Ben Eason, in a prepared statement heavier on jargon than I wish it were. "The addition of two top-ten markets -- and two of the industry's most respected alternative news products -- offers us a pivotal gateway of connectivity with the young adult audience." He went on, "While others may be looking at publishing companies through the lens of old print media, we are pioneering the opportunities offered by convergent print, web, and new media applications."

Pioneering opportunities? Pivotal gateway of connectivity? Culturally vibrant markets? What bullshit by Eason . . . but what genius by Miner, to include the phrase: “in a prepared statement heavier on jargon than I wish it were.”

Could you imagine what our publications and intranets and press releases would read like if we could do that kind of thing? I can:

“We need to leverage our core competencies if we’re going to expand into the global market and be a world-class organization,” says CEO Jeff Assface, in what has to be considered a stream of complete and utter bullshit.

“We’re doing our best to penetrate the vertical market without losing our critical share of our target audience,” says VP of sales Myron Taint, in an effort to use a lot of big, important-sounding words to make himself appear smarter than he really is.

“We need to embrace change in order to create a synergy that will allow this organization to overcome challenges and seize opportunities,” said Chairman Ben Dover, in an obvious attempt to avoid saying the words “layoffs,” “force reductions,” or “downsizing.”

My God, if we could write like that, we might actually get someone to read our stuff!