Stereotypes in the News
It seems that the media is focusing this week on dominant women in the news. First, I read that women are now the queens of their castles and men are just agreeing to whatever their spouse wants:
Then, a reader emailed me this article from today's Sydney Morning Herald on the desperate need for female leaders:
So, basically, what I hear the first article saying is that the stereotype that women nag and demand that spouses change is alive and well and husbands give in to keep the peace. This is interpreted in the article as "power."
In the second article, women are all fuzzy and nurturing and the only way they have "honed their experience" as leaders is to have had experience with children, shopping and cooking dinner. Women do not command any authority, so they have to influence without it--rather than learn how to command authority, the writer of this article seems to think that women don't need it--they can lead "from a core that focuses on values, not power. They build interdependent teams, praise rather than punish, and gain loyalty by focusing on the human being, not the human doing. This is what generation X and the Millennials want and this is precisely what women leaders give them."
If these articles were trying to make a case against female leadership, they could not have done a better job--the stereotypes of women as demanding nags who are described as "queens" at home without any authority in the public sphere are hardly a ringing endorsement for female leadership. Can you really lead simply by praising people and focusing on "values" rather than merit? It sounds like a recipe for disaster, kind of like some of our worse public schools systems. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on women gaining authority, working to change the public perception of women in authority, and learning to use power in appropriate ways if it is necessary. Women are effective leaders, but it will be harder for a woman to get elected if the media portrays women in such a stereotypical light. It feeds people's worst fears of what a female leader would be like--the queen bee they know at home or the boss at work who leads like she is running a character education class rather than the boardroom or the country.
Men might throw their weight around at the office, but at home, women are the bosses.
A study, which was just released, finds that wives have more power than their husbands in making decisions and dominating discussions....
Wives were more demanding — asking for changes in the relationship or in their partner — and were more likely to get their way than the husbands. This held regardless of who had chosen the issue.
The women were not just talking more than their husbands.
"It wasn't just that the women were bringing up issues that weren't being responded to, but that the men were actually going along with what they said,” Vogel explained. “[Women] were communicating more powerful messages, and men were responding to those messages by agreeing or giving in.”
Then, a reader emailed me this article from today's Sydney Morning Herald on the desperate need for female leaders:
If ever there was a time in history that cried out for women's leadership, that time is now. Terrorism, random acts of violence, famine, poverty and corporate greed are all signs that our world is slowly decaying. The historian Arnold Toynbee once suggested that societies that see an early decline are those where the people who have the power no longer know how to use it effectively, yet they won't share it with those who might help.
And who is in power around the globe? With few exceptions, men. They are at the helm of the majority of businesses, financial institutions, governments and institutions of higher learning.
Is this to say women make better leaders than men? No, they make different leaders. From corporations to governing bodies, there are simply not enough women's voices at the table to help solve the world's most pressing problems.
Ironically, through a combination of nature and nurture, women have honed the quintessential skills necessary for leadership in this day and age. The traditional masculine style of "command and control" leadership is dead. When a boss says "jump" the response is no longer "how high?" The response is "why?"....
If you doubt women have what it takes, consider this. Any woman who ever had to get three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests - all on the same day - knows how to be strategic and tactical. Women know how to influence without authority because they've spent their lives having to do so.
So, basically, what I hear the first article saying is that the stereotype that women nag and demand that spouses change is alive and well and husbands give in to keep the peace. This is interpreted in the article as "power."
In the second article, women are all fuzzy and nurturing and the only way they have "honed their experience" as leaders is to have had experience with children, shopping and cooking dinner. Women do not command any authority, so they have to influence without it--rather than learn how to command authority, the writer of this article seems to think that women don't need it--they can lead "from a core that focuses on values, not power. They build interdependent teams, praise rather than punish, and gain loyalty by focusing on the human being, not the human doing. This is what generation X and the Millennials want and this is precisely what women leaders give them."
If these articles were trying to make a case against female leadership, they could not have done a better job--the stereotypes of women as demanding nags who are described as "queens" at home without any authority in the public sphere are hardly a ringing endorsement for female leadership. Can you really lead simply by praising people and focusing on "values" rather than merit? It sounds like a recipe for disaster, kind of like some of our worse public schools systems. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on women gaining authority, working to change the public perception of women in authority, and learning to use power in appropriate ways if it is necessary. Women are effective leaders, but it will be harder for a woman to get elected if the media portrays women in such a stereotypical light. It feeds people's worst fears of what a female leader would be like--the queen bee they know at home or the boss at work who leads like she is running a character education class rather than the boardroom or the country.
Labels: political correctness, women
posted by Helen at 6:57 AM
126 Comments:
"Any woman who ever had to get three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests - all on the same day - knows how to be strategic and tactical."
Uh, so they can schedule. Being a single parent, I did too. And?
What's the deal with claiming that day to day stuff anyone and everyone does is now somehow demonstrative of great things?
I completely disagree with the idea that men are "command and control" leaders in business. I've been in the workforce for 20 years working mainly for male bosses and it has been very much a team experience. Nobody has ever ordered me to do anything. The few female bosses I have seen have behaved very similarly to the male bosses, I don't see much difference. There is a job to do and everyone wants to get it done in pretty much the same way.
As far as power in marriages is concerned, the change in the male and female power structure might mimic earning power. Years ago the husband would most likely be the dominant bread winner, therefore a husband would assume the decision-maker role in a marriage. But as women achieve equal or more earning status she might become more of a decision maker in the marriage, you know, the golden rule: He who has the gold rules.
We've had discussions in this blog recently about who does more talking and several men mentioned that they speak more about sports and goals than women, whom they claim talk about nothing. But they should listen closer to those womanly words, there is a great deal of discussion about feelings, other people and, most importantly, how to get your loved ones to do what you want them to do. Women have become masters of verbal persuasion while men have been discussing the basketball scores. Mind you, both genders can become verbal manipulators if they wish, it's not rocket science.
"As far as power in marriages is concerned, the change in the male and female power structure might mimic earning power."
-----------
I don't know if there has been a change. I know that in the 1960s (when I was growing up), there were plenty of tyrannical housewives. The husbands just didn't admit it - but you could see signs of it.
I've never had the desire to have a boss in a relationship or marriage. I can't understand men who want this, or even men who allow it, but plenty of men seem to be in that position.
I have a co-worker with a bossy housewife.
I absolutely cannot understand why men want something like that. He works his butt off, she spends. He is the work horse, she determines where the money is going to go.
I could understand it (not take part myself, but understand it) if she was some hot supermodel or something. But she has apparently had butt augmentation surgery and she has basically become a nasty bitch. She contributes nothing and takes. He contributes everything and gives.
(Most) men put up with it for some reason, but I'm developing a bit of hatred for these particular women who really exploit their sexual advantage or chivalry advantage or whatever it is.
All those peaceful docile women leaders of history... Queen Boudica, Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots, even the Jewish judge (Book of Judges in the OT) Deborah who kicked Philistine butt... Maggie Thatcher and Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi. Shrinking violets all.
"Terrorism, random acts of violence, famine, poverty and corporate greed are all signs that our world is slowly decaying"...well, let's see. Famine, of course, used to be far more common than it is now--see India, China, and Ireland for example. Ditto for proverty. Corporate greed? Ever hear of the Gilded Age?...and before there were even such things as corporations in the modern sense, there was plenty of greed, as any perusal of folk-tales will demonstrate.
The lack of historical knowledge and perspective on the part of many journalists never ceases to amaze.
I will say though, I've had two great female bosses thus far in my career. My first was in her 60s and she taught me a lot about navigating the bureaucracy of state agency and a lot about being a competent honest lawyer (they do exist!). She was a great combo of nice grandma and tough West Texas broad (that's a compliment by my lights -- and hers too).
My other boss -- was a bit scary, but effective. She could've dialed it down a notch or two, but then perfection is not my standard and looking back I see where I learned a lot.
Why is it that you don't see too much public acknowledgement of the blatantly opportunistic (and contradictory) nature of these kinds of articles?
Women are weak in one article, strong in the next. Women are fully competent and intelligent, yet they needed 10,000 years to figure out how oppressed they are. They are a perpetually-ignored group in one article, another article celebrates how they control most of the consumer spending.
Men get the opposite treatment: they're clever enough to have dominated every square inch of the earth for millenia, but they're too dumb to run the dishwasher.
What's more, these kinds of articles can appear side by side with each other, in the same journal, and they'll both be accepted as being true.
It doesn't matter if you use diametrically-opposed arguments as long as you flatter women and bash men in some way.
I've been knocking around the business and government territory for almost thirty years, and I've never met a woman executive - or a woman in any position - who fits this article's "ideal leader" paradigm. On the other hand, I've met plenty of men who were team builders rather than cigar-smoking blowhards. The kindest, most team-building boss I had was a male ex-Marine - just the kind of guy you'd expect to be a hard-ass, but he wasn't. And I find that today the younger male up-and-comers are even less likely than their elders to throw their weight around - but they still get the job done. Leadership style is an individual thing, not a gender thing.
It appears the author of this article has recently awakened after having been placed in suspended animation in 1956.
Maggie Thatcher, in her autobiography said something to the effect on her Cabinet personel....All I wanted was a dozen men, strong and true, I rarely got it.
Now, with tens of millions of men in Britain, you can say one of two things. Either the Iron Lady was wrong with impossible standards, or the leadership class in Britain was seriously decayed at that time.
I'm thinking the latter.
Deborah, from the Bible, I've heard got her position because the man was weak.
What does that say about us now? Well, I'd hold our leadership class is weak with only 14% approval of Congress. As the author of the article says, they do need to let others pick up the burden since they are inadequate. And it will be women if men don't step up to the plate as that is the historical pattern.
Tennwriter
One reason men give in to their wives, is they have to put up with enough of their whiny bullshit and just want peace.
One thing that drives me bonkers are women who complain about how much they have to do when most of what they are complaining about IS VOLUNTARY.
"Any woman who ever had to get three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests - all on the same day - knows how to be strategic and tactical."
Ok, so if all of the above makes a woman fit to lead the world (and most likely the universe) then I should be able to lead the universe also. At different times in my (male) life, I have worked road construction, been an electric company lineman, worked in IT at a major corporation, been a male model, done the grocery shopping, watched two parents die, been a waiter and bartender, raised a child as a single parent, got him to day care, school and soccer practice (something that was simply beyond his mother's ability), prepared nutritious meals every single day and changed thousands of diapers. Among a few other things.
So, when is my coronation?
Anon
If you ask me, our current female leaders are just as vile as our current male leaders. I think our system of government - as practiced today, not as envisioned by the founders - attracts vile people and ensures that vileness leads to career success.
Am I to assume that there's a vast, untapped reservoir of squeaky-clean female executives out there just waiting for the voters to pump them off to DC to flush out the corruption? Sorry - kinda doubt it.
And even if we replaced our cadre of lame-asses with fresh, spiffy new females, they would soon find their own, unique ways to fuck up the country.
We won't get good leadership by voting for one sex or the other. We'll get good leadership by not voting for narcissistic scumbags.
Is there a way that we, as voters, can tell the parties, "Sorry, your candidates are narcissistic scumbags and we don't want to vote for either of them. Go find somebody else and try again?"
"Any woman who ever had to get three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests - all on the same day - knows how to be strategic and tactical."
Unfortunately, none of that has anything to do with leadership. That has nothing to do with envisioning a shrouded future and inspiring others to work toward revealing it. It has nothing to do with providing support and encouragement to individuals so they keep faith in accomplishing their part.
So as far as women being leaders, we learn they will either be a tyrant or a micro-manager. Not exactly a good stereotype?
Cham wrote that women's increased earnings make them more equal partners in marriage. I agree and would add that the unfair divorce laws add to a woman's power.
In no fault divorce and community property states like California, a wife can initiate a divorce and win substantial financial support, even if she brought no income or assets to the marriage. This happens regardless of how bad her conduct was while married.
One reason I do what my wife asks me to do is that I realize that she is often right. In a complimentary marriage, you do well to listen to the thoughts, feelings, wishes, and desires of your parnter.
And nagging is often a system problem. My wife never nags me when I take out the garbage when it is full or the first time she asks me to. I can certainly get her to nag by forgetting or ignoring her requests.
With my ADD, that is quite easy to do. But I would not be innocent of her nagging, I would be reinforcing it by only fulfilling her requests when she nagged. If I get up immediately to do what she asks the first time she mentions it, she asks me to do things less because she thinks I am sweet and attentive. If I do things the first time she asks often enough, I can even ask HER to remind ME after the kdis and I finish playing outside or whatever. I can only do that about once a week though! But fulfilling a request the first time it is presented does not give her any chance to nag. 8)
Now, this is not to say that there are not some people who look for opportunities to nag, that they will manufacture them if they do not exist, and that some of them are women.
But even good hearted people can be encouraged to nag if their partners forget or ignore what they are asked to do enough.
Trey
"three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests"
So how is it that working people don't do this on Saturdays also? That's their only day off really you'd think that working people would have even more hectic domestic schedules than a housewife who can split up the chores during the week.
The people that compared the rates at which men and women talked should do the same for daily tasks. Every 12 minutes they record what the housewife is doing and compare that to those in the work force. I guarantee my life is not as hectic as many people who are working. Cleaning the entire house only takes a couple of hours. (if your competent your house isn't so messy to begin with that it takes longer), again a well organized person would keep a well stocked pantry and not have to rush off at the last minute for a ton of grocery shopping for dinner guests that that only give 24 hour notice. And who in the right mind has three different kids at three different events on the same day?
Any home maker that brags to me about how hectic their schedule is will really only look incompetent.
So men are henpecked. Nothing new there.
What gets me is not losing arguments. It's when my wife continues to chew on an issue long after I've tried to gracefully surrender. I don't really understand why she does this. I have theories, but they're not very flattering to her.
"..through a combination of nature and nurture, women have honed the quintessential skills necessary for leadership in this day and age. The traditional masculine style of "command and control" leadership is dead."
George Carlin once said, "yes, men have screwed up the world, but to suggest that women are the answer is just crazy. Women's only interests are in their own personal finances and reproductive rights. Beyond that, women use the the old world system/approach to life more than even men- men would truly be the ones willing to try a 'new system.'"
"When a boss says "jump" the response is no longer "how high?" The response is "why?"...."
There is nothing 'revolutionary' about this. This is nothing more than classic female behavior and/or approach to virtually every aspect of life, and always has been, and ironically one of the primary reasons why the vast majority of women typically do not rise to positions of power. Women are inefficient and irrational and those traits are the very opposite of what is needed for authority.
"If you doubt women have what it takes, consider this. Any woman who ever had to get three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests - all on the same day - knows how to be strategic and tactical."
Oh God, not more of this. Anybody can do these things.
"Women know how to influence without authority because they've spent their lives having to do so."
Another problem with 96% of all women in any postion of authority is that they are almost always AWOL in every case. Women are infamous for their inconsistancy- they are not consistent, day to day, month after month people, year after year. Oh, they put on a great 2-dimensional show, (this is why women are better at PR- but really nothing else) but they are all 'show' but no substance- that is the real heart of the problem with women in the workplace in general as well.
And that wraps it all up- all the rest is hot air and BS. Hope this clears up all the confusion for everyone. You're welcome in advance.
DrHelen, I would happily do anything you told me to do. Though I hope it would be something naughty.
Here's something naughty to try: Take off your clothes, gently massage yourself all over with honey, then steal a bus and drive it into a bridge abutment at 90 mph.
Humans are flawed, women are humans, therefore women are flawed. They may rule differently, but their rule will still be flawed.
are they saying childless women, couldnt do anything at all, that having children equates to having employees..
Hmmmmm......I wonder if the fact the US public school system - in every state - is largely staffed and run by females (and males who seem to get along quite well in that environment) might have anything to do with why public education is in such sad condition.
A woman from my law school just got a Supreme Court clerkship. Instead of law review, she started the family law association, planning picnics to welcome students with families. The school loved her for it. She started p-t 1L year, to concentrate on the core classes and take them more slowly. She worked as a receptionist at the clinical law center, befriending the adjunct professors who are attune to balancing family and career. She got some great grades, good networking contacts that led to clerkships, etc. A real family woman, 2 children born during school, supportive spouse. Caring person everyone attests would make phone calls and go the extra mile to help someone in the community.
A Supreme Court clerkship. But no law review. Nice family though.
Go figure.
bugs!
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Sooo......
"If ever there was a time in history that cried out for women's leadership, that time is now. Terrorism, random acts of violence, famine, poverty and corporate greed are all signs that our world is slowly decaying." -- Some article from the some Sydney newspaper, as cited by Dr. Helen
....nagging women is the answer to Islamic terrorism?
The reasonably prudent individual would think...."Hey! Wouldn't the 'reasonably prudent Islamist' just haul off and murder the nagging woman? Be she housewife or national leader?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[It matters little what sheep think, if wolves are of a different opinion.]
Interesting angle. Given the Islamists' attitudes toward women, would electing Hillary as President actually reinforce their belief that they can destroy us? And would President Hillary do anything to discourage that belief?
Men are giving in to women because women have all the power. Look at the results of divorce in this country, and the rights of fathers versus mothers.
That is why men put up with it, the alternative for them and their children is much worse.
I wonder what happens to our society when men begin to pass on marriage altogether.
On the leadership issue, men do not think women can not be leaders, we are just afraid of getting the blame and having to clean up their mess. If Hillary was president the idiots would challenge her. She would send them a signal they would never forget, because to appear soft would ruin her and future womens, chances of holding power.
No we are afraid of a woman president with a chip on her shoulder, backed into a corner, armed with the most powerful arsenal on the planet.
I wonder what happens to our society when men begin to pass on marriage altogether.
No need to wonder. Just look at the "inner city."
Oh, please. Somebody looking to write an easy piece takes some stupid stereotypes and throws them around, and everyone comments on it. If we ignore these poorly written and analyzed articles perhaps they will go away.
The reality in the United States, is that slowly and steadily women are moving up the ranks of the business world. Most couples I know are very happy having two paychecks, something that the business world appreciates much more now. People read the "Women's Room" or the Feminine Mystique to see how times have changed. Equal rights has won. Women are in the work force, as equal partners. I don't see America going back to a single paycheck system, with the two bedroom cottage and one car!
“[Women] were communicating more powerful messages, and men were responding to those messages by agreeing or giving in.”
This isn't power or leadership. Men just want to get laid and divorce is too expensive, so they give in.
I love stereotypes, and the first article seems to describe more the stereotypical Jewish housewife (not to imply common laborer).
Gentile women, on the other hand, too often suspect some kind of [male] conspiracy, which may account for their high incidence of domestic impracticability.
African-American women - all things being relatively equal - appear to have better instincts, at least in mixed relationships/marriages.
All of which amounts to nothing when a man is in love. But after the second or third year, best she know how to cook, which turns her weight into pure gold.
TO: Anonymouse
RE: What You "Don't See"....
"I don't see America going back to a single paycheck system, with the two bedroom cottage and one car!" -- Anonymouse
....will not be as important as what you DO 'see'.
America becoming Western Europe.
Contrary to Hillary's book, it takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Not a village.
The 'village idiots', better known as DSS and such, do better a getting children in deep do-do than anything else. I believe the good doctor here has posted on that. Even recently.
As the old adage goes, "Blood IS thicker than..." the water that flows in all too many 'public servant' veins.
You have a choice....
[A] Money
[B] Good Children
Maybe, just MAYBE, if you have enough money, you can have A and B. But if you don't have enough, you can only have one or the other. Ask any 'inner-city, single-parent, mother of five'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You know you were a good parent, if your grand-children turn out alright.]
P.S. But if they don't.....
....isn't that 'too late'?"
TO: OTR
RE: A Good Woman
"All of which amounts to nothing when a man is in love. But after the second or third year, best she know how to cook, which turns her weight into pure gold." -- OTR
Go look at the latter part of Proverbs 31. I think you'll find it....'interesting'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Who can find a virtuous woman. Her worth is more than rubies. -- Proverbs]
What a bunch of asinine articles based on stupid stereotypes. A competent housewife is not necessarily equipped to be a great leader or businessperson. She is, however, a competent housewife. Maybe she would be a good personal assistant too, but the skillsets do not necessarily overlap.
Oh, and if we're going to go on wholly unscientific observations, here's one: Based on the number of completely incompetent mothers and housewives I see weekly at the supermarket (screaming, undisciplined kids, disorganized, out of control, poor hygiene), I would say that there are precious few potential world leaders to pick out of that bunch.
If passing on marriage ends up being a man's only defense, it will be the route he will take. Pardon the graphics, but there is absolutely nothing a woman has that I want enough to possibly go through what I went through once already. That stuff, although wonderful, ain't THAT good. I can remember near the end when I got laid once a month, whether I needed it or not. A round trip ticket to Vegas and a hooker once a month is a hell of a lot cheaper than a wife. And the time in between is a lot more peaceful.
Regardless of who falls out of love first, or who the philanderer is, or the abuser, or whatever the situation, the woman gets the winning ticket.
The feminists don't want equality. They want it all. But they are no more capable of handling it than men. They just think they are, which makes them dangerous.
Feminism is no more than a much louder and nastier version of bitch, bitch, bitch - nag, nag, nag without the ring.
The pre marriage woman, and the post marriage woman are two entirely different people.
There is one week of every month I would be afraid of a woman President with the launch codes in her possession.
br549,
If that woman President has PMS and she forgot to take her medicines then you should be afraid for two weeks of every month! Joke. :)
In my 25+ years working in business consulting and systems development I’ve experienced the change from male dominated middle management to female dominated. What I’ve learned the hard way is that if you have a woman leading a project I have to document absolutely everything. Women seem far more concerned with WHO decides things (and who gets blamed for any mistakes) than WHAT is decided. In one very technical systems design meeting I attended, a woman proposed that we take turns deciding how the system would work, instead of debating pro’s and con’s to find the best design. The other women in the meeting found nothing strange about making design decisions that way. Once a system is under development, it’s normal to discover things that were missed or misunderstood. Woe unto any developer that doesn’t have full and complete documentation that the decision was not his alone, as the effort expended to determine who a female can blame will far exceed the effort to fix the problem. Men, in general, will quickly accept an error was made and focus on what needs to be done to fix it. Due to the drastic difference in time I need to spend on project development tasks (documenting all conversations and decisions) managed by women, I’ve had to create a different rate structure for projects lead by women compared to men.
My own theory for why this is relates to Evolutionary Psychology: men evolved to work cooperatively in groups (hunting, fighting, etc). Sublimating their own desire to lead, they work better in groups or teams. Women are more familiar with non-group/team efforts. Child rearing is essentially a dictatorial job where you can ignore the advice of others at your whim.
Why are wives “in charge” at home? Well, here’s the deal you get as a man, when you get married today:
At any point, for any reason, or for no reason at all, your wife can terminate your marriage.
If she does, she gets your kids. Who was the parent who spent the most time raising them up to that point in time isn’t a factor. Who would best be able to supply the future time and financial needs isn’t a factor. She gets them.
You continue to financially support not only your children, but your ex (and maybe even her new boyfriend), with no say in how that support money gets spent, or if any at all is spent on your children. And you have no legal recourse.
As your children now spend the vast majority of their time with your ex-wife, she’s allowed (and even encouraged by her friends and society) to demean you to them.
She gets half of all the assets, no matter who “earned” them. And it’s the better half: the more liquid assets, the more valuable real property, the “best” car. The more children you have, the more lopsided the division is.
She earns the sympathy of society for being a single mother.
You earn the disapproval of society for “abandoning” your family.
And if you are thinking that men are leaving their wives at the same rate as women are leaving their husbands, think again. See Braver’s landmark study where he asked both husbands and wives who wanted their divorce. Both agreed, that in over 75% of the cases, it was the wife that wanted divorce, mostly over the objection of the husbands. Other studies put the rate even higher, up to 90%.
So, as a husband, if you want to keep your family intact, if you want to be a father to your own children, if you don’t want to be limited to seeing them every other weekend, you’d better go along with whatever your wife wants.
If the sexes were reversed in this “deal” how many women would still be interested in marriage? And how many wives would be able to handle the results of divorce as stoically as men are doing now?
three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner
As a single, male parent, this describes a lot of my days except I do the laundry. I plan my time fairly well but no one seems to think I'm a great leader.
I shudder when I think of what kind of women are seeking power, these days--Nancy P., Hillary C., Cindy S. all come to mind, and I get all cold--not warm and fuzzy--inside.
I realize I'm not in the majority, although I do have lots of company, but I don't think families, communities or our nation benefit from having dominant women and cowtowing husbands. Mutually supportive, affirming relationships are healthier, IMO, and it's what I've become accustomed to at home. Interdependence is far better than co-dependence, or worse.
re: Chuck Pelto said..."Go look at the latter part of Proverbs 31. I think you'll find it....'interesting'."
Please, no homework! Put it in your own words.
PS. In my experience, the only successful, long-term marriages I've witnessed are the ones where the wife can cook. While the others are "arrangements" - sort of like Bill and Hillary.
Regarding management, I think John-8:33pm summed it up pretty well - at least as a reliable, general rule. Not to mention that a smart man would spot the exception, i.e. Margaret Thatcher, from a block away.
So, it's not really a gender thing at all, it's who can get the job done... most efficiently.
After reading otr's comment, I read John-8:33pm's comment. I agree whole heartedly.
Working with females, I've learned to save every email, every updated version of survey questionnaires, and otherwise document everything possible. I've had females surreptitiously change documents in an attempt to shift the blame for errors to someone else but never had a male do this.
The females at work also tend to ask "Why?" someone made a mistake. Mistakes are mistakes. Asking "Why" is ridiculous. As my male boss says to end mistakes, kill all the humans.
It seems to me that a lot of these comments about how women are so horrible to work with are based on an n of approximately 1.
Dr. Helen -- in general, the women who have been effective leaders have been accused by feminist of not being very feminine. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir come to mind. They ran their cabinets as ruthless as Churchill and Ben Gurion did theirs. They unhesitatingly backed forceful military action and were under no illusions about the dangers of negotiations with dangerous and aggressive adversaries.
What the second article points to is utter cluelessness about how the world works.
Consider:
"If you doubt women have what it takes, consider this. Any woman who ever had to get three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests - all on the same day - knows how to be strategic and tactical. Women know how to influence without authority because they've spent their lives having to do so."
As if a Pakistan after a coup/assassination of Musharraf with bin Laden's forces effectively controlling nuclear weapons is amenable a woman scheduling lots of different things multi-tasking. Most of what is wrong with our political class is that it is deeply feminized, that is it projects the feminine perception of a safe, suburban world where status and laws and PC rules actually mean something. When largely, the world is ruled by the AK-47, IED, and RPG, and men like General Butt Naked.
Considering Osama bin Laden started AQ by murdering his mentor, Abdullah Azzam, in a car bomb, well the middle class feminized view of the world is laughable up against a man like that. A Valerie Plame (from cube dweller to trophy wife of a rich dilletante diplomat) or a Hillary Clinton have nothing to offer against dangerous men who's entire career has been built on killing people.
Women, largely, do NOT have what it takes. They don't possess the ability to make a decision, and demand the decision be implemented. Even if it means killing people. I could not see either Hillary or Valerie or Nancy having the mental model of the world required to be anything but a pathetically weak leader surrendering to men like bin Laden. Both Meir and Thatcher understood that the enemies they faced were ruthless and dangerous and needed very unfeminine rooting out by their own dangerous men.
If the world was a nice safe suburb this might be different. But it's not. The Government of the Congo, for example, has asked it's people to please not kill and eat the Pygmies. [It's supposed to give those who do so, "Magical powers"]
I'm a man, I raised my kids alone and did (and still do) all the housewife stuff. What has that to do with leadership? Not very much. I've been a leader in business / charity and the connection between the two is close to zero.
As for the men and women at home: I'm now sure we're talking a dominance issue. Many (most?) women are dominant in the home and the men allow it as the ONLY way to get some form of household peace. Talk to men who have raised kids alone: There are a great many women who've never raised kids who deeply believe that being female makes them automatically more knowledgeable on child rearing. Look at the posts from many women here and elsewhere in the 'net. The dynamic is hurting us all, but I cannot see a way out of it, at least in the short term.
Dr. Helen is right, the articles take a sexist view of people and run off with it. Why can't we have normal decent views of who men and women are?
Look at the world around us, look at the problems. They can't be solved using the gender dynamic we now have. They can't be solved by men or by women. Nope. It will take a new way of seeing the world to solve these problems and THAT is tied to what's between the ears, not what's between the legs. We're at a time when we need a dark-horse leader and that leader will be what he or she is.
I do believe that a soft-conservative female leader would have automatic power advantages, probably many of them. There are too many things which a male cannot say and cannot do due to the inbuilt sexism of our culture. A female leader has an immense advantage in that way.
Now, if you want to say that our culture has reached a point of oligarchy, you may well be right. There's plenty of theory suggesting that all democracies devolve into oligarchies. Fixing that may indeed lead to fixing a great many other problems. However, fixing the supposed oligarchy problem has nothing to do with gender.
"There's plenty of theory suggesting that all democracies devolve into oligarchies."
-----------
They usually devolve even further after the society gets fat, maudlin, sappy and naive. I'm sure feminist values will triumph - just before the collapse.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous 7:09:
It is rather pitiful that you feel the need to come to my blog to talk about my husband--this is not the place for it. The problem is that you realize he would not give a person such as yourself the time of day and this really bugs you. He has a platform and you are so weak you have to come to my blog anonymously with drive by remarks. Sad.
As an ex-feminist, I struggle every day now to deal with the reality of women. Certainly I'd be happier if I hadn't been sold a bill of goods in the 70s and swallowed it whole for decades. Men have faults and make mistakes and know it and deal with it. Women tend to think they are perfect, and have huge chips on their shoulders and play the victim card as well. They want it both ways and all ways.
I've done informal surveys with female co-workers, and every one of us prefers male bosses. I have a female boss now and can attest that her concerns are that everything LOOKS right. It doesn't matter than things aren't right but that her a$$ is covered.
Now this sounds really sexist -- but in general, women do NOT want to take orders from other women. Women do not actually recognize hierarchies among women as men do among men, and as women do among men and men with women. I really resent taking orders from women and it took me a long time (as a 32 year feminist) to admit this. I admit it freely now.
I don't think men have the same issues taking orders and direction from women -- because they are bossed around first by their mothers and then by their girlfriends/wives. Women have "equality" and "sisterhood" drummed into them now from very early on, which means we really prefer to take orders and direction from men. Again, I don't know a single woman who wants to take or likes taking orders from a woman in a superior position. Women don't recognize superiority in other women.
On the competence and leadership issues, there is no reason women can't be equally competent, but leadership is something women will never nail down correctly because it is not in the female nature. It just is not. Leadership is about making hard and sometimes very unpopular choices and convincing others to see it your way and follow. Women don't do that - we are loathe to make hard choices and stick by them. That's why you see articles like the one in Salon about Hillary! running as a man while Obama runs as a women.
As for the PMS thing, it is very real, and it is 2 weeks out of every month (at least) for many women. There will never be a female president of this country who is not way past menopause, believe me. Never. No. Way.
"The reality in the United States, is that slowly and steadily women are moving up the ranks of the business world. Most couples I know are very happy having two paychecks, something that the business world appreciates much more now."
You simple little monkey! The entire reason real estate prices and the prices of vehicles exploded through the roof was based on the 'dual income' household- i.e., women entering the workforce, now we're stuck with this nightmare!
"People read the "Women's Room" or the Feminine Mystique to see how times have changed. Equal rights has won. Women are in the work force, as equal partners."
It's funny how when anyone speaks about women in the workforce, it's always something this- "well, uh, women, uh, they're, uh... here!" You never hear how women have improved the business world, because they haven't, in fact, they have turned the business world into a farce and a joke. It's like saying, "well.. AIDS, it's, uh, here!"
"I don't see America going back to a single paycheck system, with the two bedroom cottage and one car!"
Well, that's because now they don't have a choice, you simple little monkey!
To address br549's concerns regarding Hillary's hormones: Considering her age, I'd say she ran out of hormones a long time ago. At best, she's sucking fumes. If Hillary does become the first woman President, I think there will be a steady hand on the armageddon thingy. We should all thank God or Darwin for the Change.
My experience with female bosses in academia has been less than satisfactory. One, when interviewing me, opened with "it's so great that you're a woman in mathematics!" which just astounded me. Later, when I was a bit late for work because my daughter had thrown up on me right before I left, she chastised me for being late without scheduling it in advance, even though I had called her and told her what happened and that I was going to be late.
My most recent (and current) female boss threatened to fire me because I was telling her that I found it difficult to teach my class when she kept changing the time and room of the class. As it turned out the problem was miscommunications in the office, but when I tried to tell her what I had found, she just thought I was some sort of nut who couldn't be bothered to check to find out what room my class was in and was making unreasonable demands to never have my room changed. Now they're changing my class room every day, just to spite me. That's female leadership for ya-- rawr! Behold the catty world of the female pecking order, only writ large!
"When a boss says "jump" the response is no longer "how high?" The response is "why?"...."
Good bosses have always known that it is important to explain why. The principles of management and leadership have not completely changed over the last two decades, regardless of how much the trendmeisters would like to think otherwise.
Good bosses and subordinates also know that sometimes people have to execute decisions they don't agree with. Consider an auto company, in which 4 different managers have 4 different proposals for the new model of some vehicle. The product line executive must pick one of them to actually get built.
He owes the disappointed 3 managers an explanation of his decision, and maybe dinner and drinks for commiseration. He does not owe them endless sympathy for whining, and certainly does not owe them any tolerance for attempts at sabotaging the decision.
"Now they're changing my class room every day, just to spite me. That's female leadership for ya-- rawr! Behold the catty world of the female pecking order, only writ large!"
Working under a woman is almost always a guaranteed nightmare. I always advise everyone to never take a position underneath female management- I've had my share of nightmares myself.
Women have a completely seperate set of standards and/or what is even considered right or wrong, but worst of all women are not accountable for their actions, so therefore they cannot be relied upon for anything, despite all popular belief.
bugs....
The post was (as usual) tongue in cheek for me. As was the PMS thingy related to Hillary, although I truly would not vote for her. I honestly don't think for one minute most (feminist) women believe what they are saying. They've just gone about it too long to turn back now.
Are you of a mind to vote for Hillary if she runs? I am truly wondering. I would not have ever expected such, but am OK with it, if you truly feel that way - as I have read many things you have said, appreciating them, and the one who said it.
But if you are kidding (you rascal) why then, you got me again.
Best manager I've ever worked for was a 6' tall, statuesque, St.Louis black woman. Me being a shaggy, beared southern Missouri white hick. We got along great. Still friends ten years later.
It was the friggin' male yuppies that worked to ruin the environment.
"What's the deal with claiming that day to day stuff anyone and everyone does is now somehow demonstrative of great things?"
Oligonicella -- Just another celebration of mediocrity in the interests of promoting "self-esteem."
br - don't worry, I got the joke. Other than being post-menopausal, Hills possesses none of the qualities I'm looking for in a President. In fact, as I stated in another thread, I think she is quite a nasty piece of work.
Peg: Thanks for a thoughtful post. You sound like what I call (perhaps somewhat naively) an "original feminist", that is, a feminist who wanted equal rights for women in the workplace and in society, and was prepared to assume the burdens that went with those rights. I'll bet I know what the bill of goods you got stuck with in the '70s was: it was the myth that said you could have all of those things, the perfect career and the perfect life, without having to assume any of those burdens. From that myth arises what I call have-it-both-ways feminism. This is the feminism that demands equal rights while still expecting to retain the priviliges and the freedom from responsibility commonly associated with the traditional female role.
An anon poster a ways back (I can't seem to find it at the moment) made the point that you look at the women who truly made a positive difference in the world in the past two centuries or so, modern feminism either regards them as gender traitors (the previously mentioned Thatcher and Mier, and I could add Queen Victoria and Condi Rice off the top of my head), or it just ignores them altogether (Marie Curie and Grace Hopper, to name two). Modern feminism had degenerated into a bare-faced lust for power without underlying purpose, and the only leaders feminism regards highly are those who succeed in gaining that power for feminists. (And I might point out that the good Dr. Helen herself is often accused in this very forum of being a gender traitor for advocating what amounts to an originalist feminism, simply because she accepts that equal rights come with equal responsibilities.)
The sad thing is, I really thing that the originalist feminists would have deplored the articles that Dr. Helen cited. My own wife has views very close to originalist feminism, and junk like that offends her (and I agree with that). The question is, why aren't more women offended by this dreck? Or maybe they are, and I just can't see it from my vantage point?
"Pick up" the laundry?
Who "picks up" the laundry, but lacks a butler to deal with the complexities of household management?
I live in an expensive part of one of the most expensive cities in the US, and can't think of any full-service laundry facilities, except one that deals with military uniforms.
Do housewives, insofar as they exist, actually "pick up" the laundry any more? In what decade, exactly, was this author last outdoors?
Barry
San Diego, CA
TO: OTR
RE: Reading Assignments
"Please, no homework! Put it in your own words." -- OTR
I cannot put it any better nor more concisely than it is written there. But in case you DON'T have a Good Book to use as a reference....
Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household [are] clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing [is] silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it;] and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. {31:26} She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue [is] the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband [also,] and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates. -- Proverbs 31:10-31
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Good hunting and good luck....]
TO: Barry
RE: Laundry, Anyone?
"Do housewives, insofar as they exist, actually "pick up" the laundry any more? In what decade, exactly, was this author last outdoors?" -- Barry
Mine does.
But I do most of the cooking and kitchen clean-up. We have a robot do the floors. Wish we had one for the windows.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Microsoft will finally make a product that doesn’t s--- when they start manufacturing vacuum cleaners.]
P.S. Thank God for iRobot, otherwise, doing the floors in this 4-level, 6500 sq ft 1901 home would be a REAL chore.
Hey Helen,
If you want to run for President in '08, you've got my vote.
Conditionally, of course.
I'll expect a special cabinet post as Secretary of Silly Walks & Heavy Lifting.
Chuck- Where do you have your laundry done? If there's actually demand for that service, maybe I should start it here. Is it actually cheaper than just buying new clothes every few weeks?
Barry
Why do strangers on the Internet feel compelled to cite the square footage of their home?
The funniest things I've seen are when there is an outdo-the-other-one fight as to who has the highest IQ on the board. All of them are always like 150 or 170 or something. Even the ones who can't spell or think something logically through to a conclusion.
Hey......
I live in a 65.00 square foot home, and my I.Q. is 1.7......
are you makin' fun of me?
The back of my minivan is 4'x6', which would yield a 24 square foot home. We could let the irobot loose and see what it can do.
Delete delete.
Still, I wonder how many people are thinking what I'm thinking about the sturdiness of your husband's "platform".
Heh! Can you spell A-C-C-O-U-N-T-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y? Cuz I can. And your husband sure has dug himself a hole with his purple finger preaching about how he's just out to help the women and children of Iraq. Coward. Delete, but remember, there's plenty more out here like me, who read and observe. Can't shut us all down, no matter how much faith you have in that "platform" of his...
Accountability.
I'm a neocon. Proud of it too. Accountable, oh yes, and generally quite happy about it. Yes, the soldiers went in my name, and freed fifty million people from the chains of slavery.
Am I proud of it? You betcha'.
You can ding neocons for their idealism, or for their occasional incompetence, but I'd rather be an idealistic incompetent than 'objectively pro-fascist' as Orwell called it. You need to prove to me, anon 8:36 that Orwell wasn't right about you.
Tennwriter
Women's interests differ from men's, which then affects what they're willing to pursue fanatically and to the point of delusion. Vicki Hearne on this here and relatedly here . Sometimes the stereotype follows rather than leads.
Derrida in his Choreographies interview pondered the place of women, saying that the wrong question is being asked, and taking for granted that they are not men ; perhaps women create places. Which would then be how she comes to be master of the house, in the story, which then misses the right analysis of it.
Derrida does not consider her interests, and Hearne does not consider Derrida's reversal of the question, but perhaps trying to do both at once would get somewhere.
Stanley Cavell has it that men are driven mad by hyperbolic skepticism (``How do I really _know_ ...'', a desire to know beyond human conditions of knowing) and women are driven mad by fanaticism, a desire for love beyond human conditions of loving ; two of Kant's errors of reason.
The question of women and leadership seems to go in the wrong direction, in that it thinks that women really need to be more like men. An academic feminism.
Emma Goldman : If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution (hence Derrida's title).
That's if you want to talk about women rather than women as men.
Women as bosses? I've had male bosses, and female. Can't say as either sex seemed very good at it. Had one male boss go into a snit because he claimed I hadn't told him something, and I had the gall to show him the e-mail.
The Peter Principle works whether the boss in question has a peter, or not.
DID ANYONE ELSE NOTICE THAT, ONE OF THOSE ARTICLES IS REPORTING ON A STUDY, AND THE OTHER IS AN OPINION PIECE (by a dr, but still mostly opinion).
I'm not saying you shouldn't give both equal weight, but maybe you should at least consider not doing that, eh?
(thanks for your attention)
Tennwriter-
You can ding neocons for their idealism, or for their occasional incompetence, but I'd rather be an idealistic incompetent than 'objectively pro-fascist' as Orwell called it. You need to prove to me, anon 8:36 that Orwell wasn't right about you.
I'm not anon 8:36, but what do you mean here? How does criticizing the neocons equate with being "pro-fascist", whatever you intend that to mean?
rhhardin-
Women's interests differ from men's, which then affects what they're willing to pursue fanatically and to the point of delusion. Vicki Hearne on this here and relatedly here . Sometimes the stereotype follows rather than leads.
I'm not sure what you intended to illustrate with your cited examples. Isn't delusion unhealthy wherever it is, if you're harming others? Assuming that whatever someone is referring to as a "delusion" actually is one.
Derrida in his Choreographies interview pondered the place of women, saying that the wrong question is being asked, and taking for granted that they are not men ; perhaps women create places. Which would then be how she comes to be master of the house, in the story, which then misses the right analysis of it.
Lots of people would like to take everything that's mine and spend it on themselves or their pet charities and causes, that doesn't mean it would be right - legally, morally, economically, or otherwise. Maybe women do create spaces, that doesn't mean they should dominate, abuse, harass, etc. men who don't agree with them. By that standard male abusers in the old days liked to "create spaces" as well.
Stanley Cavell has it that men are driven mad by hyperbolic skepticism (``How do I really _know_ ...'', a desire to know beyond human conditions of knowing) and women are driven mad by fanaticism, a desire for love beyond human conditions of loving ; two of Kant's errors of reason.
I disagree with the first statement, women can and often are exasperated by types of hyperbolic skepticism. You can see it with the "safety" nonsense. Driven by the desire for nonsensical "safety", many women would try to change this country into a totalitarian state. They don't see the inherent evil in trampling fundamental rights as long as someone is mumbling about "safety" - something can always be "safer" even as they become destructive, intrusive criminals.
I don't follow your second statement, how are you defining your terms? What do you mean by "fanaticism" as "love beyond human conditions of loving"?
The question of women and leadership seems to go in the wrong direction, in that it thinks that women really need to be more like men. An academic feminism.
I'm not sure the question goes that way. Certainly some women in leaderhip positions do. Some seem to associate male leadership with coercion, control, abuse, etc. for its own sake, which is a formula for tyranny. So by aping some strange conception of male leadership as coercion we're left with tyrants. Either that or its underlying pathology, which is always a possibility.
A certain type of woman/housewife will simply try to dominate the man because she CAN. It's that simple. Some men have always been weak pushovers, but today women also have the backing of the law and social structures.
TO: Barry
RE: Where?
"Where do you have your laundry done? If there's actually demand for that service, maybe I should start it here." -- Barry
At home, silly. With the exception of dry cleaning requirements for whole garments.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For more information, re-read this message.]
P.S. And the previous one....
TO: Anonymouse
RE: Why?
"Why do strangers on the Internet feel compelled to cite the square footage of their home?" -- Anonymouse
To put thinks into their proper proportion, you silly, anonymouse person, you.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[It's hard to appreciate the size of a matter until someone starts citing commonly held units of measure.]
TO: BR549
RE: Hopefully....
"I live in a 65.00 square foot home, and my I.Q. is 1.7......" -- BR549
....your well-furnished, walk-in closet has a superb view.
I'm reminded of the residence of Corbin Dallas in the Fifth Element.
Does your refrig turn into your shower? Got some stray general 'on-ice' somewhere?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Don't tell me your IQ....I'm a member of Densa.]
Its "objectively pro-fascist". Orwell criticized the sort of pacifist who always ended up criticizing their own democratically elected government but rarely or weakly the fascist, and supported pacifism. The effect of such people was they helped out the fascists whether they meant to or not. Of course, a lot of people think supporting the fascists is the secret (frequently not so secret) dream of this sort of person anyways.
When International ANSWER, the core of the peace movement, had good things to say about Kim Il-Sung and other anti-American dictators, its not secret anymore.
When you deny the importance of the tens of millions of purple fingers, but exalt the importance of the daily body count, you're being objectively pro-fascist. Whether you're an actual fascist is still in doubt, but we should ask for proof of such people of their committment to universal democratic ideals.
Tennwriter
"To put thinks into their proper proportion, you silly, anonymouse person, you."
--------
So how big is your dick?
LOL
Chuck Pelto's got a big mouth, I think that is correct.
TO: Anonymouse [12:48 PM, July 14, 2007]
RE: You...
...must be the cretin that Dr. Helen keeps turning off the anonymous postings over.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[It's not the boat;
It's the motion;
That makes your baby;
Want to 'rock'. -- Some 70s song]
Actually, I'm not, Chuck. I think people who post their asserted IQs, their asserted income, their ownership of expensive cars and their precise square footage are silly. How tough they are (behind a keyboard) is an even sillier one - not that you've done that yet, just saying. I continued after you continued, now I'll stop. LOL Buh-bye.
I'm a neocon. Proud of it too. Accountable, oh yes, and generally quite happy about it. Yes, the soldiers went in my name, and freed fifty million people from the chains of slavery.
Am I proud of it? You betcha'.
You can ding neocons for their idealism, or for their occasional incompetence, but I'd rather be an idealistic incompetent than 'objectively pro-fascist' as Orwell called it. You need to prove to me, anon 8:36 that Orwell wasn't right about you.
Tennwriter
Real men don't need proof.
It is what it is.
And no matter how long you think you're going to hide from it, people are starting to look. Thinking people ask questions. Listen and learn. Keep talking Mr. Platform. Just be careful about the drop in media popularity when it catches up to you. Just because you have a platform, that is, doesn't mean you don't get called on your track record. No siree.
TO: Anonymouse
RE: Yeah....
"Thinking people ask questions. Listen and learn." -- Anonymouse
And then you've got the other people, like Anonymouse [12:48 PM, July 14, 2007 and 1:54 PM, July 14, 2007], who don't seem to think at all. They just seem to spew whatever comes to 'mind' or whatever.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Thanks for pointing out the differences.
TO: All
RE: Back On-Topic
I've worked with and for men and women in various venues. I've found good ones and bad ones in all those venues.
I found one woman I worked directly for in a commercial venue to be a superb manager. Indeed, she'd have made a great commander of a combat service support battalion. Sharp as a[t]tack, nimble of mind and full of energy, as well as being considerate, fair and polite, even in some rather stressful situations.
I was fortunate, as I watched other senior managers who were considerably less capable than mine.
I cannot speak to the mental processes that women go through working for other women vs. working for men. However, I get the distinct impression that there IS something at play there that men just don't seem to pay much attention to.
From my perspective, the boss is the 'boss'. Gender is not an issue, unless they make it such. I was fortunate that that never occurred for me.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
BITCH is an acronym...
Boys
I'm
Taking
Charge
Here]
"Real men don't need proof."
Real men don't post anon. And?
Real men always insert a name in the Name Box;
real men protect women and give them money;
real men have 6501 square-foot places with two iRobots;
real men do whatever someone says who may fail to call them a real man if they don't do it;
real men always beat up whomever their girlfriend tells them to;
real men always do what their mothers say;
Real men are real men.
Usually, whenever someone brings up "real men", I try to determine what they're trying to shame me into doing.
EXAMPLES:
Wife: A real man would buy me that thing I want.
A real man would support me while I sit home.
Thank you for your attention and consideration to this matter!
In defence of the writer or the Australian article, and only with respect to her comment on poverty, I have found that if you go into an "impoverished" village in the third world and try to effect change, it is the women you have to make a deal with.
They are the ones that will take it upon themselves to help organize the management of a water well, for instance.
They are the ones who will timely follow up and select promising children to receive english classes or extra help in school.
They are the ones who know, and will share with you, the problems that individual families in the community are having; they are the ones who know which kids have the most potential and which ones are heading off in the wrong direction.
They also are the ones who seem to work harder to bring about, rather than to obstruct, change.
In general they are also prettier.
Other than that, the writers of these articles seem to have their heads so far up their butts that they are having trouble seeing.
Tennwriter-
Its "objectively pro-fascist". Orwell criticized the sort of pacifist who always ended up criticizing their own democratically elected government but rarely or weakly the fascist, and supported pacifism. The effect of such people was they helped out the fascists whether they meant to or not. Of course, a lot of people think supporting the fascists is the secret (frequently not so secret) dream of this sort of person anyways.
Maybe in some cases. But sometimes the opposite of that theory is true - as it is in this case. By waging an illegal, unnecessary war of choice in this case you are helping the "fascists", in this case radical fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Recruitment for Al Qaeda has increased because of our policies and in Iraq they have an active training ground. And by invading and occupying a muslim country that we didn't need to we made every theory that Bin Laden has spouted about American goals and actions seem to come true. And unfortunately US military personnel and Iraqi civilians are being hurt at the same time.
Note that I am a libertarian. I am anti-war regarding the majority of wars but I am not a pacifist - I believe in self-defense.
When International ANSWER, the core of the peace movement, had good things to say about Kim Il-Sung and other anti-American dictators, its not secret anymore.
Well I don't agree with that. Although not all anti-American leaders are wrong about everything they say, the US isn't right all of the time. Personally, I read what is written and draw my own conclusions.
When you deny the importance of the tens of millions of purple fingers, but exalt the importance of the daily body count, you're being objectively pro-fascist.
When you exaggerate the significance of the purple fingers to preserve a policy that causes an ever-increasing body count you are not doing any good. What many people didn't understand from the beginning is that to a large extent the people of Iraq associate themselves by religion, sect, tribe, and clan. The majority of those purple fingers wasn't voting for a western-style politician that would meet your approval. They were voting for the guy from their sect, tribe, or clan that would protect and defend their interests in the area, not that would set up a western-style democratic government. Any government voted in over there - if they can hold the country together - is going to be a fairly hard-line muslim government. Such a government isn't going to turn into Germany or Japan after the Marshall Plan. And the most likely outcome is some form of partition or regional autonomy, likely by violence like the sectarian violence that is already raging out of control over there.
Whether you're an actual fascist is still in doubt, but we should ask for proof of such people of their committment to universal democratic ideals.
And people whose patriotism is above reproach, like myself, will tell you to hit the bricks. Although they will most likely use more colorful language.
How are you defining "universal democratic ideals"? Those probably vary dramatically from one Western-style democracy to another, ignoring for a moment that the US is a constitutional republic.
tomcal-
Unfortunately, that situation tends to be the opposite in the US.
In the US the women (in some case women and men) in the area are going to want you to "punish" the kid who has more education and promise than their kids. In fact, if at all possible they would like you to take any assets from such kids and give them to their own kids to play with, waste, etc.
In the US they would like to communize everyone else's assets, while keeping theirs privatized. Even better if they privatize as much of the communized assets as possible.
tomcal-
Almost forgot - the fathers in the US are going to want you to "punish" anyone who has dated, or more importantly rejected their daughters. Free choice is a capital crime when it comes to some princesses - other people's free choice, that is.
Why are feminists angry? Because they are not men.
Men are happier because:
Your last name remains the same.
The garage is all yours.
Wedding plans mysteriously take care of themselves.
Chocolate is just a snack.
You can be President, but you can never be pregnant.
You can wear a white t-shirt to a water park. You can wear NO t-shirt to a water park.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
The world is your urinal. You never have to drive to another gas station because this one is too icky.
You never have to stop and think "lefty loosey, righty tighty"
Same work, more pay!
Wrinkles add character.
Graying hair makes you distinguished.
Wedding dress - $5,000.00
Tux rental - $100.00
People don't stare at your chest when you talk to them.
New shoes don't cut, blister, or otherwise mangle your feet.
Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
You know stuff about tanks.
A five day vacation can be done out of one suitcase.
You can open all your own jars.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
If someone forgets to invite you, you can still be friends.
A three pack of underwear is $6.00 at Wal Mart.
Three pair of shoes are plenty.
You never have strap problems in public.
You are blind to wrinkles in your clothes.
Your face is only one color.
The same hair style is good for life.
You only have to shave the face and neck.
You are never to old for toys.
Your belly hides your big hips.
You can wear shorts no matter what your legs look like.
You can do your nails with a pocket knife.
You can grow a mustache and it is fashionable, not embarrassing.
You can Christmas shop on December 24th, and be done in a half hour.
No matter what size your penis is, it is always larger than a clitoris.
http://rotaryventuraeast.org/international/wells/pages/IMG_5548.html
This picture is a case in point for my above comments. I worked with the three ladies in the picture to organise the drilling of a water well next to a school that I built. I also worked with the same ladies to organise the building of the school. I could not have done it without them. The men (not the white guys, those are gringos, including me) you see in the pictures pitched in and started helping, but only after I had organised the whole deal through these 3 women. This is a community of 2,500 people and I couldn't find a single man to join the organizational committee.
anon 4:30
I'm sitting right here in Los Angeles and am very aware of that. I would disagree on one point. In poor communities anywhere, the smart kids are generally ostracized by their peers for studying instead of going out and goofing off. I think that in those cases it is the breakdown of the family structure in general, which then translates into community standards, that allows this to happen. Once it does happen, both men and women are equally to blame for allowing it to continue.
That being said, I believe that the "womens rights" movement had a lot to do with the breakdown of the family structure in the first place.
TO: BR549
RE: Killer!
Loved em all.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[All the world's a latrine. -- Shakespear, paraphrased by Infantrymen]
And my comments are aimed at the culture here in the U.S. and in Latin America. In spite or our differences, we share the same basic judeo-christian values.
The mideast and africa are a whole different matter. There, any aid you give to anyone will ultimately be used to carry on ancient tribal disputes and feuds. The settling of those disputes can be limited for a time by an occupying force or a brutal dictator, but eventually it continues.
Until Islam experiences a reformation, and allows reason to temper its dogma, peace in the mideast is a lost cause.
Real men don't talk crap like this:
Yes, the soldiers went in my name, and freed fifty million people from the chains of slavery.
They... went... in my name. Drama!
Real men don't write this:
I'd rather be an idealistic incompetent than 'objectively pro-fascist' as Orwell called it. You need to prove to me
No sweetie. No proof for you!
And Olgie?? Real men don't stick their noses (or other appendages) places where they don't belong, dig? Say, how's that fence building going around your property to keep keep out the deer? Have you figured out there leaping capabilities yet, or do you want to lecture us about getting special out-of-season permits to keep your veggies from getting nibbled? Lol. Real man indeed.
I just can't wait for the next few years to watch all you he-men here wiggle and giggle your way out of your predictions. Lol. For real.
Got a feeling you're going to learn both what real men are and also what ACCOUNTABILITY means in the non-tenured, you-eat-what-you-kill world. Have fun with those salads, and remember, you too can teach an Iraqi family to load the suburban dishwasher to protect the women and children folks. Lol -- fly your purple fingers everyone!! I pray to god that's all some of you painted and wiggled around in the air that day. Poor instawives of neocons everywhere! At least it's over quickly and you hardly notice when it is there, eh? What strong typing fingers you have!
AC 7:32 -- Public forum, idiot. I can join in any thread I like.
Had you a memory, you would have recalled t'was I who was talking about the difficulties of keeping deer out. Yep, their leaping abilities exceed six feet. Seen 'em do it.
By the way, I didn't bring up the depredation permits (get it right), someone else did. I just pointed out it was erroneously implied that he was talking about extending hunting seasons.
"You never have to stop and think 'Lefty loosey, righty tighty.' "
Well, us lefthanders have to stop and think that. :(
ricpic..... it's "we" lefthanders
I have an older brother and an older sister, both left handed. This thread is about stereotypes, so I couldn't resist.
anon@10:10 - What the hell are you so bitter about? It's a blog. Let it go, dude.
Back when I went through USAF Officer Training, they taught about 'leadership styles". The UASF perferred style is "eclectic", knowing that there are many styles and using the one most appropriate to the situation.
The "command and control" style which is sterotyped as militarty, is most appropiate on the battlefield, when indecision is often diasterious. Easy to see why that style got tagged as "military", but even our military doesn't use it all the time.
Someone who sneers at a people who are attempting to make a better life for themselves and their country thru the ballot and is fighting an enemy that wants to re-enslave them has no business calling themselves a Libertarian.
That, and the boilerplate cant about "illegal war", "neocons" and the ad hominem towards OIF supporters point to a leftist, which is an anti-libertarian quite frankly.
You may tout yourself being a "libertarian" Mr Anonytroll, but you talk like a leftist. I doubt you can even accurately describe what a NeoCon is.
Indeed, Myself and many other have gone and continue to go over are fighting for their chance at freedom. I would think a libertarian might support that.
Anonytroll sounds like a leftwing Pat Buchanan.
to: br549
re: loose lefties
Now be fair. Left-handers tend to have spelling problems. After all, they wouldn't be left-hand dominant if they were not, in all likelihood, strongly right-brain dominant. But they'll be there for you if you need help doing your taxes. And lefties are much better at hitting right-handed pitching, too. ;)
BTW, All: There's a really fascinating article on left-handedness in Sports Illustrated. It came out a couple years ago & I can't give you an exact date but you might be able to find it through Google.
BTW2: Anyone else ever wonder why when people refer to "the left-handed path" they refer to actions or a course of action which is, well, evil-minded in intent? Or that the ancient root of "dexterity" refers to right-handedness & "sinister" stems from a root referring to left-handedness?
Are left handers usually left legged, too? Like if playing soccer or kick ball, or kicking a football? I have actually never noticed. My oldest daughter is left handed. She eats and writes left handed. Everything else is right handed, even throwing.
I am left handed, left legged, but right eyed. Cross-dominance between hand and eye is pretty common. I don't know about hands and feet.
I am left handed, left legged, but right eyed.
This indicates that that the Forces of Light and the Forces of Darkness are striving mightily for possession of your soul. Stop watching so much television.
Or maybe limit yourself to listening to the radio, with only one ear.
Nothing in this thread would cause any thinking man to pursue a woman of the modern American-feminist-ilk today.
The core arguments against love (enslavement) are three:
1) Cost:benefit ratio -- the financial investments a man must make to "relate" with a woman far outweight any benefits he might receive. Despite that golden treasure she sits upon.
2) Risk Analysis -- any female can make a phone call, dial three numbers (911) and state four words, true or false -- "I'm afraid of him." The man is immediately harvested as guilty-until-proven-innocent ... prey of the DV Industry.
3) Aesthetic -- American women are no longer feminine. They have lost their natural artfulness, preferring to compete with men as aggressively and viciously as any playground male bully. (With the added advantage of feminist laws and pervasive social misandry...)
Feminism has extinguished desire.
It is a blessing, actually.
When the history of feminism is revised in 100 years, it will be seen as having provided men with the precise "cold slap in the face" that they required to think clearly and critically about their subjugation ... and just how simple it was to escape and move beyond it.
Merely be seeing women clearly.
Observation to all from a former journalist:
I worked at a lot of different gigs & with a couple of exceptions, most of the more people-friendly, sensitive (both to writers & to the English language) who worked with me as editors were men.
Although this was sort of a taboo topic, most of the female reporters I worked with felt the same way.
What's sort of interesting here is that most of the reporters I've been acquainted with who I thought would make great editors seemed to get drummed out of the field--and mostly by other women.
And a lot of women I know in other professional fields, at least ones near my age, seem to have the same problem...with female bosses who are good at politicking by less talented at their gigs then my friends.
I don't like it very much.
Interesting side note. I read somewhere recently (Warren Farrell essay, maybe?) that male executives do tend to make more power in most fields but women tend to get promoted into positions of power at a younger age. An interesting endnote by a commentating author observed that sexism and ageism (hotness?) against professional women were intricately intertwined.
That made a lot of sense to me, really.
I have been on this planet for 70 yaers and have yet to know any woman who wasn't Queen of her castle,be she a paid worker or a housewife.
We should all know by now that women are wired differently to men,
they feel slights even where none were intended and they cannot argue logically.
It has all to do with feelings,they are certainly queens of those as long as it is their own.
"If you doubt women have what it takes, consider this. Any woman who ever had to get three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests - all on the same day - knows how to be strategic and tactical. Women know how to influence without authority because they've spent their lives having to do so."
Amateurs talk tactics. Dilletantes talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. Getting three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests - all on the same day is a problem of logistics. Arranging your life so you don't have to do all this is strategy.
What I want to know is why we needed a study to tell us: "If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy".
I read a study that said yo momma so ugly when they took her to the beauty shop it took 12 hours...to get a quote.
...and spent the next 12 months making the rest of the family miserable because of it.
Exactly!
anon 11:53 P.M. July 16,2007
I have thought quite a bit about your post. Reading and digesting all three points you made, I found there was no need to read beyond the first point. It clinched it for me nicely. Points two and three, for me, made it overkill.
So what will (feminist) women do when they get everything they want?
When the war is won? It IS the journey, and not the destination. The pursuit, not the arrest.
Perhaps I'll build some windmills for Dawn Quixote.
To: br549:
"So what will (feminist) women do when they get everything they want. When the war is won? It IS the journey, and not the destination."
Bingo.
There's a reason that academic feminism is often styled as "feminist-marxism."
Marxist philosophy, like Nazi philosophy, Feminist philosophy & for that matter early Lutheran philosophy (the basis for much of "Mein Kamf" came almost directly from Martin Luther's 1538 rants, incidentally) is based on an eternal struggle.
You don't want to win the war because then you need a new job, one that might demand that you actually, y'know produce something, either physically or intellectually.
You might be required to do something for which you could be held PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE.
I may not be a perfect human being & by some standards my stock in trade as a writer might be considered light-weight work.
It ain't, but I'll argue that elsewhere. Point is, I was a reporter for several years. And reporters are held to very, very high standards when it comes to factual accuracy.
That's why so much journalism sucks these days. You get a reporter covering something complicated on a tight deadline and they'll mush up the facts with some expert quotes so they won't take the heat for getting it wrong.
When I wrote my trivial little car column for IGN I created a sort of ur-blog designed, primarily, to point out any factual mistakes I'd made and caught, or my readers caught, and set the record straight. Making fun of my transpositions and complaining that my editors refused, despite my pleading, to actually edit me, was another subject I occasionally brought up.
Getting facts and words right is important to me.
Muddling facts and mushing language is important to feminists, especially academics, because even if they win the struggle, they'll have to find something else to do with the rest of their lives.
And no one will listen when they complain about it.
Just my two cents.
Oh, and I make a point of posting under my own name, even in blogs, including blogs where I use a handle. I much prefer that if someone has something to say that contradicts my observation/stance/idea/data, that they be able to say it to my face. I became my own ombudsman.
Someone had to do it. I had three writing jobs and worked 100-120 hours a week & writing a column in PA for an outfit in CA for an editor you've never met when you haven't slept since last Tuesday means...mistakes will be made.
It kept everyone honest, including me.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I could really do without endless struggle. Day-to-day relentlessness is bad enough without a patois of over-arching eternal -ismist conflict to take the shine of the silver.
--Graham Strouse, aka graham_strouse@hotmail.com)
You know, if we keep this kind of talk going, we'll end up at the eternal question, again. Man's (and yes, woman's)struggles will never end. I am sure everyone is aware of that.
Is this feminism thing but another chapter in the never ending story? Is literally everything that was once right, going to be wrong? Will it swing back the other way again? It can't stop in the middle. Hell, it can't stop for a second.
Feminism is good in a couple areas.
As it expands to other countries and cultures, it will surely stem the tide of the over population problem facing this planet. It will also aid the cross culture pollination whispered about in think tanks and give people in abject poverty places to move to, to work. Eventually, one world, one color. Just like the social engineering types want. A world full of mutts.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home