Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 64

Thread: Most Donít See More Women Leaders As Better for Society

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:16 PM
    Posts
    9,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    Yes, we knew how Clinton would handle foreign policy and it was one of the reasons I didn't vote for her.
    Indeed.

    I only care about "thinking outside the box" if the idea solves a specific problem and doesn't generate 5 others that nobody has thought of yet. I've worked with some extremely creative thinkers and their contributions are......unreliable.

    When they are teamed with people who can anticipate the fallout and find ways to manage it productively, they can really come up with some great stuff. When they aren't, they can single-handedly wreck a project or even an entire division if they have enough leverage.

    Women don't have an edge on creative thinking or openness (as described in personality science today). Women as a group are in the middle of median in terms of most traits. This is why arguments about women bringing something new to the political table don't make sense to me.

    The kind of people (including women) who aspire to high political office are already not much like ordinary people to begin with. They are more narcissistic, more manipulative, more driven, and more attention-seeking than most other people. Whatever noble impulses may initially spark a political career, these are informed and sometimes twisted by the realities of seeking office from a bunch of complete strangers.
    I hope there are traces of such noble impulses that survive the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune; at least as much as you or I retain, mere pedestrians in the arena. I think rather that some people are gifted in social intercourse, just as others may be gifted athletes. They discover satisfaction from accomplishment, as stand-outs in any field might, for a variety of reasons. Pablo Casals was once asked why he continued to practice his cello several hours a day well into his 90s, and he answered, "I think I'm making progress."

    Sadly enough, social talents don't crowd out familiar weaknesses, like greed or lust. To the contrary, those very talents make such weaknesses easier to satisfy, and magnify them. Without their talent in other areas, Wilt Chamberlain or Mick Jagger might be "incels" for all we know.

    Per Norm's post above, a lot of people have been hoping that a feminine sensibility would provide a different quality of leadership. I don't know if they would dare say it these days, but liberals used to expect women to be more nurturing by nature, and so less likely to send young people into harm's way in foreign battles. Women were expected to be more pacifist.

    (That's where Ann Coulter comes in. She believes the 19th Amendment flooded the electorate with "nurturers" who ushered in the welfare state to our detriment.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Women are 50% of the population. They occupy much less than 50% of leadership positions. If you believe that women are inherently less capable of leadership by virtue of the fact that they're women, then you would expect them to hold less than 50% of leadership positions. On the other hand, if you don't believe women are inherently less capable of leadership, you would expect them to occupy pretty close to 50% of those spots. And if they aren't, it's because they are getting less opportunity to do so. If a meritocratic system is unbiased, it should bear out in the numbers.

    I believe women are just as capable at leadership. I do expect them to hold something close to 50% of those positions. So more women leaders is a good thing -- not because they'll do a better job, but because it indicates they're facing less discrimination.
    I don't necessarily agree that lack of opportunity keeps female participation in political leadership below 50%. Even if that has been the case up to recently, it may the case going forward that women have more choices about how to use their time, and they may choose politics less, just as they may choose outdoor labor less.

    Gingersnap is right that men and women are equally endowed with brains and talent, or lack thereof.

    But that doesn't mean they're the same. I don't think the social skills that make men successful necessarily work for women, and vice versa. A man putting on a whiny, tremulous voice wouldn't have the same success Christine Blasey Ford did, for example.

    I have no idea how deep that divide goes.
    ďThe interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasnít originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.Ē óSaikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.

    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." óCNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

    "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.Ē ―Robert F. Kennedy.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,972
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    So lay out some alternative reasons for less than a 50% showing, if not discrimination.

    1. They have babies, right? That's the usual conservative go-to reason. They forgo career opportunities to have babies?
    1. they have babies
    2. they often are more supportive of their spouse's career and decline opportunities for advancement because of this.
    3. they often don't demand opportunities in the same way men do;
    4. they often don't like conflict and therefore avoid the types of jobs that would demand that they engage and/or manage conflict
    5. they aren't as willing to take risks as men are and therefore pass up opportunities for leadership.
    6. they have babies.
    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
    Robert Southwell, S.J.

  3. Likes Adam liked this post
  4. #13
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 2:40 AM
    Posts
    13,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Per Norm's post above, a lot of people have been hoping that a feminine sensibility would provide a different quality of leadership. I don't know if they would dare say it these days, but liberals used to expect women to be more nurturing by nature, and so less likely to send young people into harm's way in foreign battles. Women were expected to be more pacifist.
    What are you talking about? I made no argument about qualitative differences between women and men.

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    A man putting on a whiny, tremulous voice wouldn't have the same success Christine Blasey Ford did, for example.
    Right.


    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heartís desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    -H. L. Mencken

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,972
    Post Thanks / Like
    I thought he was angry.
    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
    Robert Southwell, S.J.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 2:40 AM
    Posts
    13,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by phillygirl View Post
    I thought he was angry.
    He yelled and he cried.

    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heartís desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    -H. L. Mencken

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 2:40 AM
    Posts
    13,796
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by phillygirl View Post
    1. they have babies
    2. they often are more supportive of their spouse's career and decline opportunities for advancement because of this.
    3. they often don't demand opportunities in the same way men do;
    4. they often don't like conflict and therefore avoid the types of jobs that would demand that they engage and/or manage conflict
    5. they aren't as willing to take risks as men are and therefore pass up opportunities for leadership.
    6. they have babies.
    The having babies thing is not baseless. There is something to that. Childlessness is somewhat higher among women in corporate leadership. And that works both ways. Many of those women actually wanted children but the stresses and time demands of their careers got in the way. So that's a factor, but not enough to explain the whole discrepancy.

    Number 2 is discriminatory. That is a societal expectation rooted in the days when the man was the breadwinner and the woman was the homemaker. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 are saying that women are inherently less capable of leadership.

    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heartís desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    -H. L. Mencken

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:16 PM
    Posts
    9,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    What are you talking about? I made no argument about qualitative differences between women and men.
    You said quite the opposite, really. I was pointing out that many people, most especially liberal supporters of women's suffrage, were expecting and hoping for a different kind of leadership, even if at the time the 19th was ratified, the newly enfranchised could only vote for such leaders, and not be those leaders in large numbers.
    ďThe interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasnít originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.Ē óSaikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.

    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." óCNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

    "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.Ē ―Robert F. Kennedy.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:16 PM
    Posts
    9,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    He yelled and he cried.
    I made no reference to either yelling or crying. His voice was NOT whiny and tremulous.
    ďThe interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasnít originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.Ē óSaikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.

    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." óCNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

    "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.Ē ―Robert F. Kennedy.

  10. Likes scott liked this post
  11. #19
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    13,946
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    The having babies thing is not baseless. There is something to that. Childlessness is somewhat higher among women in corporate leadership. And that works both ways. Many of those women actually wanted children but the stresses and time demands of their careers got in the way. So that's a factor, but not enough to explain the whole discrepancy.

    Number 2 is discriminatory. That is a societal expectation rooted in the days when the man was the breadwinner and the woman was the homemaker. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 are saying that women are inherently less capable of leadership.
    No matter how woke you try to be, Celsete isn't going to bed with you. Sorry.
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  12. Likes scott liked this post
  13. #20
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    13,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    No matter how woke you try to be, Celsete isn't going to bed with you. Sorry.
    Celeste only sleeps with a gun.
    ďTotalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.Ē

    ~ Hannah Arendt

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •