Why is networking so hard when it's not social?

I remember when networking was  the buzz word for new graduates. There were career fairs galore and final year students would be advised to attend all of them and to network. It was certainly an exciting time and most of us being young and naive, believed that all we had to do was to wow the HR director from Freshfields or any other top Law firm and the job would be our's. Some of the go-getters even went further and ensured that they were only friends with those they felt were going places, it was all about securing your future. So rubbing shoulders with the Oxbridge graduate who was heading for the top city law firm meant that some of their success would rub off on you too. I confess that I was one of the ones who paid little attention, although I knew I wanted to be successful in whatever I did, I realised even then that I wouldn't find happiness or peace of mind at these top commercial law firms and as such I opted out of what I considered the painful exercise of networking. I say painful because it was the employer's market then and is probably even more so now, therefore they could have their pick of the cream of the class and would either dismiss the rest or worse still patronise them with comments like 'You're very bright and I wish you all the best in finding a training contract' - read 'You're not smart enough but we are completely out of your league'. You had to be extremely thick-skinned to not realise then and there, even before knowing your results that you had as much chance of getting on their trainee programmes as you did of being discovered on the streets as the next Naomi Campbell.
Having entered the workforce and found my way into the international civil service, I began to realise the value of networking however inadvertent. It was less about telling potential employers that you were open to offers and more about making the right impression with people knowing that you could never be sure when your paths may cross in the future. I tried to live by the motto 'Don't burn your bridges.'
Having joined the 'professional' networking site Linked In - and spent the first few months with a bland profile, I thought it was time to update the 'about me' section and reacquaint myself with those key contacts I'd made over the years. The reactions were unexpected - ex colleagues were happy to touch base and catch up personal news, the new baby, new house, new town and even a new job but then when it came to something more concrete like trying to introduce friends to old and useful contacts, people seemed more reluctant and almost put out. I noticed a familiar unease which I had found when I worked as a consultant years ago in New York - everyone assumes you're looking for the next contract so you can become something of a pariah.
Most people were almost possessive about the organisation they work for; some gave the impression that you had just asked them to slip you a £50 note or to give you a room to sleep. General banter would be met with immediate replies; the more concrete stuff like asking people if they know of opportunities or good contacts for a highly qualified friend looking for a job - would be met with an uncomfortable silence or evasion. I recognise that people sometimes feel as though they are not in a position to influence a recruitment process and far from wanting them to hand people a job on a platter, what I believe the networking exercise is designed to do, is simply broaden your scope as a jobseeker. There is always someone who knows someone who might be looking for someone, so how better to make that 3rd degree connection than with a simple introduction.
I must confess I do judge people who are guarded and who do feel put out by professional networking because I think we all need to acknowledge that we've been given a hand at some point. None of us were born experienced project managers, human rights officers or economists, someone had to give us the break which made all the difference.
As a woman networking in the East and West African countries where I've worked, has been largely about stroking the egos of powerful businessmen or government officials in the hope that they will sign on the dotted line without you having to compromise your education, intelligence and experience. It can be frustrating and at times humiliating because you wonder why your Masters degree counts for so little and why you have to resort to the same feminine wiles your mother and grandmother had to use.
In the West, networking can be even tougher because the competition tends to be fiercer. The window of opportunity to impress on paper and in person can last from a few seconds to a few minutes at most. It can be endlessly tedious trying to think of clever ways to say that you are the best person for the job because you are the smartest one they've probably seen and let's face it you can probably do this job with your eyes closed. A lot of employers tend to take on people who have the gift of the gab but often fail to deliver when they start the job they so cleverly campaigned for.
And yes it is still an employer's market so we have to play nice and expand our professional networks with a view of securing that little extra, that edge that you hope will make a difference. It can be even more of a minefield when so many people are uncomfortable with professional networking and feel inclined to act as though you had an empty begging bowl outstretched.
I'd like to think I've come to acknowledge the importance of expanding one's network, regardless of your position, short of handing someone your job, there is no reason why we cant give useful and impartial advice. Whilst I can't guarantee you'll get the job, if I can atleast give you some useful information or willing contacts who knows what he outcome will be. What's more we live in a time of such professional uncertainty that the jobseeker of today could end up being the recruiter of tomorrow and then you may feel some relief that you did the art of professional networking such justice.

Men v Sex and the City - proof that we still inhabit different planets

The time has come again for female friends to get dolled up and slip on their sexiest heels for a special visit to the cinemas. As you can imagine, we're not just talking about any old rated R film, its nearly time for us to laugh, cringe and sob over the much anticipated Sex and the City 2. Whether you're in Jo'burg, Paris, New York or Madrid, most women with access to American television will have heard of the dynamic foursome known as Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha. Two years ago I went with my girlfriends to see the first installment in West London and was able to discuss the tear-jerking and downright hilarious parts with friends who lived way across the pond in New York. We could all relate and whilst we didn't think it was a Oscar worthy plot or performances, we still loved every minute of it and saw it several times. Like Jimmy Choos, SATC seems to unify women, regardless of colour or financial means, we love the celebration of femininity, friendship and general fabulousity. So why does this US export cause so much disdain, dismay and irritation among men folk? Why, I wonder are men so averse to Sex and the City?

Yesterday as I savoured my copy of my favourite bite size magazine (http://www.stylist.co.uk/ ), I decided against my better judgement to read what four male writers had to say about the women of Sex and the City. It took some courage and tongue biting as each one analysed a different character with comments like 'Women realise ditsy in a woman over the age of 33 is unbecoming but they forgive all this because she has...shoes' - no prices for guessing who the Shortlist magazine's editorial director is referring to there. Another writer comments that Miranda who is apparently 'exactly the kind of woman decent men like' (which makes me think there cant be many of these decent men out there as I know an awful lot of single Mirandas) is portrayed as selling out as she settles for 'bored domesticity with a man not fit to clean her shoes'. As if we hadn't been insulted enough, Samantha, who many of us believe epitomises female strength and sexuality is dubbed as a single man's dream because she is willing to and encourages single women to have non committal sex without the promise of  a ring or expensive gift. Perish the thought that a woman would actually enjoy sex and engage in it for her own pleasure. And so these four masculine 'thinkers' go on, pulling apart the women and the series as little more than a disgrace to feminism. Carrie is apparently the least attractive to men because aside from being 'ditsy' she 'works from a rule book made from princessy-ness and insecurity'. But before you rush out to buy yourself a cat and resolve to live a life of singledom, there is hope for the single woman; writer Chris Bell gives us all a little encouragement  by encouraging us to look to Charlotte who he describes as 'perfect wife material - formal and reserved in public; a 'goer' in private, as our role model. So all is not lost, if we all strive to be 'Park Avenue Polyanna(s)' we could land ourselves husbands and have our very own happily ever after - apparently Charlotte's character is the one who 'wins' - true love, marriage and kids! Talk about hitting the jackpot.
If on the other hand you prefer to make feminists lament all over the world by having 'free' sex with men then you'll only have yourself to blame when you can't even find a boyfriend let alone a husband! Tut tut tut Samantha.
Now if you go for option no. 3 a la Miranda, be prepared to settle for table scraps - according to Justin Quirk, what stands out most about Steve is not his unconditional love for Miranda or his willingness to put up with her at times 'difficult' and domineering ways but that he is a 'not good looking semi-literate barman'. Take note those of you who have looked for substance over style in a partner.
Whatever you do, do not and I repeat do not accumulate shoes, no matter how beautiful you find them and how they make you feel and how much disposable income you have, because if you do, you'll simply be expressing everything that is 'shallow and materialistic about modern womanhood'.

I confess that I wasn't under any illusions about men being thoroughly different from us but I think having lived with one for a number of years, I came to believe that there can be common ground even if the fundamentals differ. Yet after reading these four accounts, I can't help but conclude that when given the opporunity to truly express themselves without fear of reproach, men confirm that they inhabit a planet that is light years away from our's. If we consider that these men are supposedly the intelligent, well-read and presumably 'exposed' minority and yet they spout such sexist tosh where everything we do is in relation to their world and their being, then what hope is there for the not so smart ones.
Samantha cannot simply have a high female libido, nor can Miranda genuinely love her family and her career because the two must cancel each other out. I can honestly say that pieces like this give me a whole new level of a lack of respect for men. It's unfortunate that we live together, work with each other and yet so many of them still find it hard to see us as equals. The usual misogynistic stereotypes still pervade where women are only defined by their ability to bag a husband. Likewise when they do choose a career, it has to be all of nothing, they cant be mothers, wives and career women too.
Note to the opposite sex - yes we do like shoes ....so what? - you like football, we like shoes, atleast they make us look and feel sexy.
If these men are a representation of what the majority of men think, then I'm glad that most of my friends are female and I cant wait to hit the town with them for our Sex and the City 2 night out so we can raise a glass to four fabulous ladies who remind us quite a bit of ourselves.

Mr Cameron, you are no Barack Obama

The Sun newspaper defaced Barack Obama's Hope poster in today's edition by replacing the man whose campaign and image reflected the true meaning of the word with the image of the far from inspiring toffee-nosed Mr Cameron. Their melodramatic headline went 'Cameron is our only hope :http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/article2961073.ece
The very idea of me having to pin my hopes on the constantly airbrushed, disingenious David Cameron is enough to make me pack my bags and return to Africa sharpish.
The sad thing is that because British journalists are so lacking in imagination, they get on a bandwagon and hold on to it for dear life, regardless of whether it smacks of contradictions or not. Mr Cameron could not be more different from Barack Obama in style, politics and vision if he tried.
Aside from there having two very polarized upbringings, David Cameron was born into a privileged English family, went to private schools all his life including a preparatory school attended by the Princes of Wales and York and the prestigious Eton. All this was rounded off nicely by a noble degree at none other than Oxford University.
Barack Obama on the other hand was born to a Kenyan father and American mother who divorced when he was very young, had a very modest childhood, attending local schools in Indonesia and finally moving back to the US to live with his grandparents, hard working Americans who were by no means wealthy.

Fast forward to their political and ideological ideas and I still fail to see the likeness, Mr Cameron is the leader of Conservative party which by definition has always favoured the 'haves' at the expense of the 'have nots'. They believe that, like the Republicans in the USA that everyone should do for themselves, this is partly reflected in their policies to fix what they refer to as 'broken britain' including rewarding married couples because we should aspire to marriage and those who are irresponsible enough to find themselves as single parents should just go and hide in shame. Likewise they would like to encourage people to create their own schools when the state ones are failing. This is all very well for the highly educated overzealous mummies who move about in their 4x4s and are fortunate enough to not have to work. The majority of us who rely on the government providing good schools for our kids will end up being left out in the cold. Although the Tory party (as the Conservatives are also known) now claim the NHS as the best thing to happen to Britain, something they wish to protect, once upon a time would have quite happily cut spending on the service that affords the majority of Britons free healthcare.
The democrats and President Barack Obama on the other hand believe that government has a responsibility to ensure fairness for all. Obama has, against all odds been able to push through a healthcare bill which will ensure that all Americans regardless of their financial means have access to affordable healthcare.

The Conservative party and Mr Cameron's approach towards everyone taking responsibility wouldn't be so objectionable if we all started on an equal footing. Instead we have a world where there is no level playing field and yet you expect me to pull myself up when you've been given a significant head start and advantage? It would be like telling women to stop moaning and work hard so they can become CEOs and Directors of companies and earn the same salaries as men; all good and well, if you would be so kind as to take away the social and professional advantages afforded to these men.
The Times newspaper had a front page photo of the Camerons in what I would call a cringe-worthy pose - SamCam (as Mrs Samantha Cameron is fondly referred to) stretched out lovingly on her husband's lap. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/04/david-samantha-cameron-caption-competition I didn't have to go through my old copies of Newsweek and Time magazines which covered the US election campaign to recall the likeness of many of the photos we saw of the Obamas on the road, campaigning from one US State to another. The difference was that unlike this extremely staged pose, theirs seemed very real and did not scream PR stunt to the discerning public. Perhaps it's the Brit mentality but I cant help but be cynical by Mr Cameron and his heavily airbrushed images and massively staged photo ops. I would perhaps find it all a bit forgiving if it were original but for either the media or Mr Cameron himself to try and position him as Britain's answer to Barack Obama is insulting for those who know what the two leaders and their parties stand for.
Gordon Brown may be awkward and not a people's person, wrinkles, gaffes and all but atleast he is who is he is, warts and all. I would much rather have a leader who  is dull and real than one who is so bent on selling us the perfect image, that he deliberately misleads the public into thinking that he is something that he is not. The people's leader you are not and will never be Mr Cameron, win or lose this election so rather than spending mounds of cash which I appreciate you and your wealthy party can more than afford, you should focus on the substance. Have the balls to say what you stand for and to reflect this in everything you put out to the public. That way atleast those who do end up voting for you will be fully aware of what they are letting themselves in for.
And please do us all a favour and jump off the hope bandwagon!