Women Rule: Kick Out Corrupt Old Men & Apply Here

[arildno]

Hint: hysteria...

 

[wolram]

Hint: hysteria...

I did notice, but thought it best not say any thing, so hey people chill out
untwist those nickers and have a nice cup of tea.

 

[Evo]

I did notice, but thought it best not say any thing, so hey people chill out
untwist those nickers and have a nice cup of tea.

Can you mkae some cucumber sandwiches? :!)

 

[wolram]

Can you mkae some cucumber sandwiches? :!)

Sure i can, i will do the ones with the crust cut off and cut in triangles
and we can have strawberries and cream and fancy cakes covered with lashings of sprinkles

 

[Evo]

Sure i can, i will do the ones with the crust cut off and cut in triangles
and we can have strawberries and cream and fancy cakes covered with lashings of sprinkles

mmmmmm :!)

 

[brewnog]

Sure i can, i will do the ones with the crust cut off and cut in triangles

Forget that, Evo would prefer a whole cucumber, sliced lengthways, on a french stick. That's how to do it...

 

[wolram]

Arildno, it is your fault my thread has gone to pot .

 

[Lisa!]

Arildno, it is your fault my thread has gone to pot .

He deserves to get a ribbon for hijacking threads!

 

[wolram]

He deserves to get a ribbon for hijacking threads!

I quite agree, come hither didno and allow me to pin this ribbon on you.
wow that is a big ornate special looking pin.

 

[arildno]

Moi??
A ruiner of threads?
I can't believe it!

Well, then, back to topic:
I think women should rule because it is natural for them to lacquer their toe-nails, but for men, that's just..weird.

Any counter-arguments?

 

[honestrosewater]

Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain.

 

[Astronuc]

Actually - Atecone boes dad thnigs tob rain.

 

[Astronuc]

Referring back to hrw's post on a previous page, which quotes Naomi Weisstein -

Bruno Bettelheim, of the University of Chicago, tells us (1965) that “we must start with the realization that, as much as women want to be good scientists or engineers, they want first and foremost to be womanly companions of men and to be mothers.’ Erik Erikson of Harvard University (1964), upon noting that young women often ask whether they can “have an identity before they know whom they will marry, and for whom they will make a home”, explains somewhat elegiacally that “much of a young woman’s identity is already defined in her kind of attractiveness and in the selectivity of her search for the man (or men) by whom she wishes to be sought...” Mature womanly fulfillment, for Erikson, rests on the fact that a woman’s “somatic design harbors an ‘inner space’ destined to bear the offspring of chosen men, and with it, a biological, psychological and ethical commitment to take care of human infancy.” Some psychiatrists even see the acceptance of woman’s role by women as a solution to societal problems. “Woman is nurturance...,” writes Joseph Rheingold (1964), a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, “anatomy decrees the life of a woman... when women grow up without dread of their biological functions and without subversion by feminist doctrine, and therefore enter upon motherhood with a sense of fulfillment and altruistic sentiment, we shall attain the goal of a good life and a secure world in which to live it.” (p. 714)

The comments of Bettelheim, Erikson and Rheingold are rather unfortunate, and seem rather patronizing or condescending. The statements attempt to apply a certain behavior to a large population in one a one-size-fits-all, when it doesn't.

As my wife points out - "Women come in a full range of human
possibility just like men, dogs, cats and chimpanzees. For some women,
nurturing is everything, for others there has to be something else.
All human psychology needs to accept variations in genetics and
predispositions."

 

[arildno]

As my wife points out - "Women come in a full range of human
possibility just like men, dogs, cats and chimpanzees. For some women,
nurturing is everything, for others there has to be something else.
All human psychology needs to accept variations in genetics and
predispositions."

Your wife is a very intelligent person.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about Dr. Rheingold.

 

[wolram]

Women do seem to think in a different way to men, evidenced by the things they like around them, there are some that break the general patern but they are few.

 

[arildno]

I fully agree!

Women do seem to think in a different way to men, evidenced by the things they like around them,

Like lacquered toe-nails.

there are some that break the general patern but they are few.

For example, both men and women like to pick their noses in secret.

 

[wolram]

I fully agree!

Like lacquered toe-nails.

For example, both men and women like to pick their noses in secret.

Picking ones nose is a VERY bad habbit

And who the heck looks at womens feet?

 

[arildno]

Picking ones nose is a VERY bad habbit

Shrug. Not as bad as picking others' noses.

And who the heck looks at womens feet?

I don't.

 

[wolram]

Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain.

Is there a hidden message in this?

 

[Moonbear]

As my wife points out - "Women come in a full range of human
possibility just like men, dogs, cats and chimpanzees.

Dogs, cats and chimpanzees come in a full range of human possibility? Maybe you've misquoted your wife a bit there?

 

[honestrosewater]

Is there a hidden message in this?

Yes, but not for human eyes.

 

[Astronuc]

Dogs, cats and chimpanzees come in a full range of human possibility? Maybe you've misquoted your wife a bit there?

No, that part was a 'copy and paste'.

More correctly stated - women have a full range of behavior (and potentials, or possibilities), as do men, as do dogs, cats, and chimpanzees.

Or more generally, humans have a full range of possible behaviors - one size does not fit all.

 

[wolram]

I wonder what it woul be like if a man turned into a woman over night or
tother way round, would he/she still like the same things?

 

[marlon]

The "unwarranted" part is that it's not true.

Well, that's exactly why i don't get it because it IS true.

If everyone has a few anectdotes to contradict you, then how much of a general trend could it possibly be?

I never said that everyone has such counter examples because i actually know lot's of people (yes and also females) that agree with what i am saying here. So, NO just because many people have certain anecdotes does not mean they actually represent a trend. It is naive to think that.

You're simply wrong that such a trend exists.

Am i simply wrong ? Well, if that's what you think about it, ok ...

I've worked in plenty of environments that were all female

Ohh, really, like you have already worked in 25 different places that were ALL all-female. I really don't believe that and i am convinced that you won't be able to sell this argument to many other people as well. Such arguments are typical examples of the "anecdotes" i was referring to previously. Funny thing is that these little stories tend to change their content as a discussion goes on and on. I really wonder why that is

(I attended a women's college;

Why ?

it was inevitable that the student organizations and committees were all female),

Obviously

and we got plenty accomplished and all worked together just fine.

That does not really represent the professional world no ?

If having a male present changes the group dynamic, and you're male, how can you even begin to claim you know how an all female group works when no men are present?

Easy, because i know women that work an all female group. Also, i have seen many documentaries on influential women (not just some little people like us, working in small departments or occupying any other ordinary position) like Margret Thatcher who explicitely stated that they preferred working with MEN.

In short, women are not very good (to say the least, but i want to be polite here) at making a sacrifice for a group. Why is it that group sports is a "guy-business" in at least 95 % of the cases ? This is just some manifestation of primitive male behaviour, you know...

Besides, i know one is not supposed to say what i am saying because the content of my message will be classified as "discrimination". I resent that because i never say that women are inferior to men, i just say that they have other talents (and no i don't mean just cooking, as i am sure you will be thinking now). Women can be the CEO of a big company, but NOT IN AN ALL FEMALE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. We are just not the same...Is that really such a bad thing ?

marlon

 

[Astronuc]

Easy, because i know women that work an all female group. Also, i have seen many documentaries on influential women (not just some little people like us, working in small departments or occupying any other ordinary position) like Margret Thatcher who explicitely stated that they preferred working with MEN.

That's because the men are easier to control.

. . . women are not very good . . . at making a sacrifice for a group.

I'd respectfully disagree.

Why is it that group sports is a "guy-business" in at least 95 % of the cases ? This is not just some manifestation of primitive male behaviour, you know...

Guy team sports IS certainly a manifestation of primitive male behavior.

 

[marlon]

That's because the men are easier to control.

With all do respect, this is not funny at all.

Guy team sports IS certainly a manifestation of primitive male behavior.

Yes indeed, i made a bad mistake there. I should not have written the "not". Anyhow, i have corrected it. Thanks for the notification Astronuc.

marlon

 

[Moonbear]

Well, that's exactly why i don't get it because it IS true.

Based on your own anecdotal evidence. If anecdotes are not sufficient to refute your claims, then anecdotes are also insufficient to make your claims. You have shown no evidence to back up your claims other than a few women you know, and one who claims to prefer to work with men in a documentary, which says nothing about all the other women in the world. Besides, preferring to work with men means nothign about what one can accomplish when working with other women, it just might be that men make life a bit more interesting for women.

I never said that everyone has such counter examples because i actually know lot's of people (yes and also females) that agree with what i am saying here. So, NO just because many people have certain anecdotes does not mean they actually represent a trend. It is naive to think that.

And lots of women will DISAGREE with what you are saying here too. It's ALL anectdotal, unless you'd like to cite the references for the studies saying otherwise.

Am i simply wrong ? Well, if that's what you think about it, ok ...

Yes, that's what I think about it.

Ohh, really, like you have already worked in 25 different places that were ALL all-female.

When all you have is anectdotal evidence and a big generalization, just a few counter-examples are all it takes to dismantle your theory.

I really don't believe that and i am convinced that you won't be able to sell this argument to many other people as well. Such arguments are typical examples of the "anecdotes" i was referring to previously.

Yep, just like your claim. Sexist people usually do refuse to accept anything that contradicts their own view of women.

Funny thing is that these little stories tend to change their content as a discussion goes on and on. I really wonder why that is

What little stories? Yours?

Why ?

Because it was an excellent school where I was able to really develop leadership skills.

That does not really represent the professional world no ?

Why wouldn't it? We all wound up in the professional world. Of course, in the professional world, it's rare to have any group of only one sex...either sex. That's why I don't believe that you really know many people who have worked in such an environment who can state with any certainty how well it works.

Easy, because i know women that work an all female group.

Anectdotal...you've already said anectdotal evidence doesn't count. I've also worked in all female groups, as stated above, and have not experienced such problems. Maybe it was just the particular group they worked in.

Also, i have seen many documentaries on influential women (not just some little people like us, working in small departments or occupying any other ordinary position) like Margret Thatcher who explicitely stated that they preferred working with MEN.

Please name all those "many" documentaries. Or was it just one, and one woman who had such a preference?

In short, women are not very good (to say the least, but i want to be polite here) at making a sacrifice for a group. Why is it that group sports is a "guy-business" in at least 95 % of the cases ? This is just some manifestation of primitive male behaviour, you know...

Actually, the studies show that women work better in groups than men. Making "sacrifices" for a group is not necessarily a good thing. If you're making a sacrifice, it means you're not contributing your best, but leaving that out for someone else to shine...that's more an individual ego-booster than a team skill. Instead, listening to the other group members and integrating the best of their ideas is a good team skill.

For example:

Research has demonstrated that men have generally enjoyed greater recognition for their work than have women. While there has been some change, many stereotypes remain.[8] However, even if this is true for single-person research, the dynamics may shift when dealing with multiple-member teams. Some have suggested that female leaders more naturally integrate the contributions of the group than do men and that this tendency may yield superior outcomes. A growing body of research has demonstrated that women are more likely than are men to have mastered "the patient skills of relationship development, communication, and social sensitivity,"[91] all of which should improve synergy formation within a research team. However, it should be noted that there are others who take issue with the notion that men and women manage differently.[10]

In our project on management research, the gender of the authors involved in the study did affect the significance of the publication effort in one particular way. We found no significant difference in the number of citations for either male and female single-author articles or single-gender teams. However, when the teams were composed of both men and women, female-led teams were more often cited than were male-led teams, thus providing preliminary support for the notion that women may be more effective than men at integrating the contributions of research team members. However, same-gender teams were more frequently cited than were mixed-gender teams.

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/032/teamwork.html

And:

Women think through decisions better than men, are more collaborative, and seek less personal glory, says the head of IBM's Global Services Div., Douglas Elix, who hired two managers within this year--both women. Instead of being motivated by self-interest, women are more driven by ''what they can do for the company,'' Elix says. Adds Harvard Business School Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter, author of the 20-year-old management classic, Men and Women of the Corporation: ''Women get high ratings on exactly those skills needed to succeed in the global Information Age, where teamwork and partnering are so important.''

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_47/b3708145.htm
Particularly noteworthy of the above, is this:

Using elaborate performance evaluations of execs, researchers found that women got higher ratings than men on almost every skill measured. Ironically, the researchers weren't looking to ferret out gender differences. They accidentally stumbled on the findings when they were compiling hundreds of routine performance evaluations and then analyzing the results.

So, unlike many gender-based studies, this one didn't go in with any particular bias or expectations about gender differences from the outset.

Of course, if you only form your teams based on gender, to the exclusion of the other skills of the members, it matters little whether you have a team composed of all men, all women, or a mixture of both...you're still going to have conflicts that reduce productivity. Perhaps that was the experience of the women you know.

Again, for example:

Diversity on teams has been shown to be positively associated with performance if process challenges are addressed. Diverse teams have been shown to generate a greater variety of ideas, draw on a greater store of tacit knowledge, make better decisions, and more effectively accomplish complex tasks than individuals. Since several recent studies have found a tendency toward homogeneity in self-formed work teams, managers may need to intervene during the formation process to encourage diversity.

Gender is among the characteristics associated with diversity and is known to influence team behaviors. For example, research suggests that women are more comfortable than men with team-based evaluations and rewards. This may be partly due to findings by gender theorists that men's relationships tend to be defined by role and status, while women tend to value relationships based on communication and understanding.

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/014/teams.html

 

[Astronuc]

That's because the men are easier to control.

With all do respect, this is not funny at all.

Why is it not funny. There is probably some element of truth to it. I'm sure one could find anecdotal evidence.

As for competitive male behavior, one can look at corporate America and look at the success/failure rates of co-executives - look at AOL-Time Warner, Disney, and a number of other Fortune 100 or 200 corporations where one executive was forced out because of disagreement with other executives. I witnessed some corporate dog-fighting in the previous company at which I worked. There were co-presidents, and one out-maneuvered the other. It cost the company a lot of money, and the company went into a nose dive. I ended up forcing the ouster of the remaining president who was mis-managing the company. The VPs were freaked out (scared), but they eventually went along when I pulled together the necessary support. I wish what I did wasn't necessary. Then the VP's moved up and one became the new president. Unfortunately he was a bigger yutz than the ousted president. The situation with our company ended up in Federal court in a first of kind case. So my division ended up getting itself sold to another company.

 

[Moonbear]

As for competitive male behavior, one can look at corporate America and look at the success/failure rates of co-executives - look at AOL-Time Warner, Disney, and a number of other Fortune 100 or 200 corporations where one executive was forced out because of disagreement with other executives. I witnessed some corporate dog-fighting in the previous company at which I worked.

What's interesting, and substantiated by the above articles that I cited, is that the women's willingness to put the best interests of the company ahead of their own best interests, while good for the company, is also what hurts the women in the long run. Instead of taking personal credit for an accomplishment, they share it with the team. The men, when assigned to a team, will instead still work more individually and divide up tasks in a way that makes it easy to assign credit to each of their accomplishments. The work still gets done either way, but with the women, the team actually works as a team, and with the men, they really are just each working as individuals on a component of the project and then coming together at the end to fit all the parts together. At the end, the men are all accountable for their individual contributions, and get rewarded on the merits of those contributions. The women's teams, on the other hand, really worked cooperatively and do not have any way to recognize individual efforts, so just split the credit equally based on the outcome.

 

[marlon]

Based on your own anecdotal evidence.

Ok, first of all, i used anecdotal evidence to counter your objections on my first post here. In your original post, 99.9% of the content was based upon such evidence. Now, that we both agree that anecdotal evidence does not denote a general trend (like you first said) this must tell you that your original post really did not say that much at all.

You have shown no evidence to back up your claims other than a few women you know, and one who claims to prefer to work with men in a documentary,

Well call it evidence or whatever, it does not matter. I gave you an example of a woman in an exceptional position who clearly agreed with the content of my message here. Other women are Marie Curie, Frieda Kahlo (Mexican painter), etc etc... Keep in mind that i only use examples of women in top positions and such examples are rare (i wonder why that is).

which says nothing about all the other women in the world.

I am not talking about all the other women in the world since 99.9 % of them are not in the professional positions that i just outlined. they are not in those positions that make an actual difference to a company or society.

Besides, preferring to work with men means nothign about what one can accomplish when working with other women,

I disagree, it means exactly that. If someone tells you that they prefer to work with you other than someone else, it's exactly because they think they will achieve more with you. No sain person is selfdestructive, you know.

it just might be that men make life a bit more interesting for women.

That, on the other hand, is very true and the same goes the other way around.

And lots of women will DISAGREE with what you are saying here too. It's ALL anectdotal, unless you'd like to cite the references for the studies saying otherwise.

I don't have references to "studies" because women in top positions are very rare. I am sure that most women that want to be in such positions, will say they want an all female staff or something. But, when they actually are in that position, they will conclude that they need men to do the job. Ask all female prime ministers for that matter. besides, Angela Merkel also said a similar thing on a public conference in the European Union.

Yes, that's what I think about it.

OK

When all you have is anectdotal evidence and a big generalization, just a few counter-examples are all it takes to dismantle your theory.

C'mon, you are saying the same thing over and over again. Haven't i already answered to this ?

Sexist people usually do refuse to accept anything that contradicts their own view of women.

Pfff,, generalization, generalization, generalization,...

no comment

What little stories? Yours?

No, the anecdotes YOU were using in your very first post.

Because it was an excellent school where I was able to really develop leadership skills.

Ohh, and that's the only school where you could learn this ?
Or let me put it like this : Ohh, this school just happened to be all female. I mean, you found out about that later

Why wouldn't it?

Because it's just a bunch of stupid students that actually try something for the first time. There are no real life penalties/risks like the ones in the professional world. C'mon, don't tell me you fail to see that difference.

We all wound up in the professional world.

Well, keep in mind that the academic world is not really the professional world.

Of course, in the professional world, it's rare to have any group of only one sex...either sex. That's why I don't believe that you really know many people who have worked in such an environment who can state with any certainty how well it works.

You don't believe this ? No, problem, i don't believe you either. But it does not matter since all female groups will never occur in the professional world because of the disfunctional groupdynamic.

I've also worked in all female groups, as stated above, and have not experienced such problems.

Well can i answer like you : "i don't believe you because ..."

Please name all those "many" documentaries. Or was it just one, and one woman who had such a preference?

What does it matter if it was just one BBC documentary on Margret Thatcher ? If she said it, she said it. Look at the composition of her political cabinet. That should give you enough proof.

Actually, the studies show that women work better in groups than men. Making "sacrifices" for a group is not necessarily a good thing. If you're making a sacrifice, it means you're not contributing your best, but leaving that out for someone else to shine...that's more an individual ego-booster than a team skill. Instead, listening to the other group members and integrating the best of their ideas is a good team skill.

All these studies can be very true but they clearly do not reflect the achievements of men in both the professional and sports world. All great companies (except Estée Lauder i guess ) have been founded by men. All biggest donations to charity (Gates, Buffet, Pavarotti (War child Concerts)) have been done by men. The best music groups, artistic geniusses, best inventors... I mean , who takes such studies seriously if you look at how men can work together...



regards
marlon