In the NYTimes: How Suite It Isn’t: A Dearth of Female Bosses:

Analysts and executive women also say that one of the biggest roadblocks between women and the c-suite is the thick layer of men who dominate boardrooms and corner offices across the country. “The men in the boardroom and the men at the top are choosing and tend to choose who they are comfortable with: other men,” Ms. Bartz says.

Here are my thoughts on what women are up against on their way up the ladder.

Point one: Let’s be honest: confidence, charm, and power are sexually attractive in men. (Oh, lord, I hear the PC police sirens comin’ at me.) For a woman to be sexually attractive, she needs to have … a nice body, a nice face, and a nice body.

So why is it that men are allowed to flaunt their sexually desirable characteristics in the office sans recourse, while women are supposed to come in dowdy square outfits befitting a nun? Because sexually attractive women make the men uncomfortable. Oh, poor little man can’t think with his brain because his other head starts to get involved! Boo hoo. And yet — men are allowed to be sexually desirable all day long. (In fact, such behavior is generally rewarded with a higher paycheck, better title, etc.) Yup, if you’re a man, you’re allowed to display your verbal AK and flirty flirt flirt and get rewarded — not penalized, like women who display their sexual desirability in the office. (Don’t think I didn’t see it all unfold at The Bank’s holiday party.)

I’ll admit: for a while, on principle, I purposely wore form-fitting skirts, 4″ heels, and snug sweaters. Strutting from the elevator bank, through the lobby, into the corporate cafeteria, don’t think I didn’t notice male heads turning.

And the males notice it too. They can’t help themselves. So in their weakness, they clamp down: insist on conservative dress codes and the straitjacketing of women’s sexual power. Meanwhile, they continue to flaunt their own.

A man being sexy is legitimized and rewarded in the workplace, while a woman being sexy is penalized and frowned-upon.

Point two: “I’m aFreud to love” is more than just a snappy tee shirt slogan. Mommy issues are the core of most people’s psychological hoo ha, and executives are no exception.

So what happens when a male is forced to deal with subordinates that are female, intelligent, driven, ambitious, and talented? Assuming the male is comfortable with himself, he’ll do exactly what he does with his subordinates that are male, intelligent, driven, ambitious and talented.

Except, guess what folks. Not a lot of people are comfortable with themselves and, when exacerbated by a male executive who may be married to a female executive, enter profound desire-to-prove-self syndrome.

The male exec with women reporting to him will do what he can, most likely subconsciously, to undermine the successes and advancement of his female underlings while supporting the career trajectory of his male direct reports. Why? The female already comes with the projection of the most important person in everyone’s life: the mother. Mom already has enough sway over the male exec. Add in a powerful wife, and you have what can only be considered Bad News Bear for any woman unfortunate enough to report to Mr. Man. He will continue to screw over the women in his reporting line, because in a way, it’s his attempt to screw over his mom. ‘Cause mom’s got too much power over him, and he wants his bottle, dammit.

Meanwhile, the men in his reporting line are little mini-mes. He wants the males (read: himself) to do well. So he’ll open doors for them. Sweet.

Point three: We do it to ourselves, and that’s what really hurts. While us women are walking around in beekeeper suits at the office, the men are prancing around displaying their sexual attractiveness in an entirely legitimized way. And how does the woman in upper management respond? By blushing when the young guy presents his decks, by feeling flattered when he starts to mimic her speaking style, by promoting him way past his competency level. All in the meantime ignoring all of the other women in the office.

Why would she do the other women a favor, or even give them an equal playing field? Why should she? She’s been trained since day one to compete with other women (for men); why should the office be any different?

I feel fortunate that I have a deep and unwavering respect for the two women above me on the food chain, as well as the other strong women in my department (and there are many) who are self-possessed and less likely to fall prey to a man who’s set his charm on stun.

But many women will advance men instead of women because the men make them feel attractive (and feeling attractive is important to women, I don’t care how fatty your C.V. is) and the women make them feel threatened.

Let’s recap:

• Men are rewarded for being sexy while women are punished
• Male upper managers will marginalize women (as they represent Mommy) while promoting men (as they represent self)
• Women upper managers will promote men (who make them feel hot) while marginalizing women (who make them feel bothered)

The bottom line: Screw the rules. I’m sticking to my principles and I refuse to compromise the complex authenticity of ANP to satisfy the reductive and patriarchal system established by and for the comfort of men. If my presence in the corporate environment makes the nuts of my male higher-ups curl into a tight ball, so be it. It’s the firm’s loss, because I could be adding a helluva lot more value for The Man if The Men would just let me.

Until the Man gets his act together and let’s me call more shots and make a difference already, diversification of Portfolio ANP continues.

Would love to hear what others think about all this. I promise, if your opinion differs, I won’t come atcha w/my softball bat.