Spammed again.

Out for beers with the boys yesterday after work. More beer than I am accostumed to, which is not very much. I think the most interesting thing to come out of it was a discussio about a contract that used to work with us. The context is that we are hiring, and that one of the prospects is woman that is a friend/work colleague of our boss from our boss’s previous employer. What are the pros and and cons of our boss, a woman in an otherwise male dlominiated industry, hiring another woman? This seems good on the face it; and good for our boss, too, in that it will make her work social life better. There is a concern about, on the one hand, favoritism, and on the other, the inherent difficulties of a friendship between and boss and a subordinate.
I digress. Back to the contractor. Her relationship with the boys was brought up by the boss. The is concerned that the boys won’t include the potential new hire, her female associate from a previous position, in all the reindeer games. The boss cites the apparent exclusion of the formet contract, who was a woman.
So, pulling it all together: while at the bar drinking beers with the boys, this whole misch-mash comes up by the alpha male, specifically the exclusion thing. And he lists several reasons why he found it difficult to include the contract. Sports/activities/hobbies came up. He is a runner, has run marathons. She ran in a marathon, but didn’t do well. He is a mountain biker. She has a mountain bike, but says she walks the bike uphill and lays on the breaks on the way down. So I think that she expects enclusion on the basis of her participation; he derisively excludes her because of her poor performance.
What am I trying to say? The Alpha set the tone. There was also an issue in that the boss and the contractor were socially close, and most of boys thereby didn’t feel comfortable with the contractor. That was a huge deal.