Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:29 PM
    Posts
    5,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    OK, let's ride that mule. Let's say that Walmart does a headcount and discovers that 63% of managers are female. Should HR get an order to only hire men until women are 51%?

    And again, why precisely do these measurements not get applied to pro sports and entertainment?
    I'm thinking that once, in 1953, a group of interesting people just happened to be in a coffee shop at the same time and a great discussion of issues, ideas, and the meaning of life occurred. Since then we have been waiting at Starbucks for Lawrence Ferlinghetti to say something heavy.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:29 PM
    Posts
    5,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Women are expected (by a large segment of the population) to support their husbands' careers at the expense of their own. Men are not expected (by that same segment) to do this. Sometimes this is because of a disparity in earning potential, which is itself discriminatory. As I said, this is a vestige of the "good old days". You might say, "Oh, but they want to." What people want and what they are taught by society to believe is best are not unconnected. When the shows people watch and the books people read tell them that happiness is a two-car garage in the suburbs, people tend to want a two-car garage in the suburbs. And when Ozzie and Harriet are happy with Harriet being a homemaker, women tend to want to be homemakers. Some people will overcome that conditioning, but more people won't.
    It didn't seem like anyone on ozzie and harriet worked a 9-5. I don't remember Ozzie working. What was his occupation?
    I'm thinking that once, in 1953, a group of interesting people just happened to be in a coffee shop at the same time and a great discussion of issues, ideas, and the meaning of life occurred. Since then we have been waiting at Starbucks for Lawrence Ferlinghetti to say something heavy.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Women are expected (by a large segment of the population) to support their husbands' careers at the expense of their own. Men are not expected (by that same segment) to do this. Sometimes this is because of a disparity in earning potential, which is itself discriminatory. As I said, this is a vestige of the "good old days". You might say, "Oh, but they want to." What people want and what they are taught by society to believe is best are not unconnected. When the shows people watch and the books people read tell them that happiness is a two-car garage in the suburbs, people tend to want a two-car garage in the suburbs. And when Ozzie and Harriet are happy with Harriet being a homemaker, women tend to want to be homemakers. Some people will overcome that conditioning, but more people won't.
    Simply because a disparity in earning potential may exist between two people doesn't mean it's discriminatory. When two people marry, oftentimes one is clearly more educated and/or more intelligent than the other. Which one do you think that usually is?
    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
    Robert Southwell, S.J.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:09 PM
    Posts
    13,812
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by phillygirl View Post
    Simply because a disparity in earning potential may exist between two people doesn't mean it's discriminatory. When two people marry, oftentimes one is clearly more educated and/or more intelligent than the other. Which one do you think that usually is?
    The smarter one. There is no inherent reason that it should be one sex or the other. You might feel differently about that.

    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. #35
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    The smarter one. There is no inherent reason that it should be one sex or the other. You might feel differently about that.
    "should" is not the term I would use. I don't think there is an inherent "should". I do think there is an inherent "usually is", however, and that is the male. It's not always, but it's more than sometimes. When that is not the circumstance it often, although not always, causes issues ultimately in the family.
    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
    Robert Southwell, S.J.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    13,990
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by phillygirl View Post
    "should" is not the term I would use. I don't think there is an inherent "should". I do think there is an inherent "usually is", however, and that is the male. It's not always, but it's more than sometimes. When that is not the circumstance it often, although not always, causes issues ultimately in the family.
    How is that statistically possible?

    If you accept that the intelligence of men and women exists on the Gaussian in the same distribution, one sex would not be more likely to be the smarter in any given heterosexual relationship.
    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

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    How is that statistically possible?

    If you accept that the intelligence of men and women exists on the Gaussian in the same distribution, one sex would not be more likely to be the smarter in any given heterosexual relationship.
    I haven't thought this through completely, however, I believe that in most hetero relationships one party is more educated and/or intelligent than the other, or at least have chosen work that matches that educational level. Let's say that both are equally intelligent. Both are equally educated, however one chooses not to pursue employment commensurate with that person's educational and/or intelligence level. That one is usually the female. Those pairings, in my view, have a better chance of working out long term than when the male chooses a lower level of employment (or not to be employed outside the home at all).

    I also believe that it is more common for a male to choose a mate that is less intelligent or educated; whereas a woman would be more apt to choose a mate that is more intelligent or educated than she. Of course, the reverse can be true. It can also be true that they are equally intelligent and/or educated.

    My point in all this is that women, on the average, tend to be more apt to be supportive of subjugating their own careers for those of their husbands than the reverse. Is this inherently discriminatory? I don't think so. Is it inherently discriminatory that women tend to delay their careers to raise children, or to assume a less taxing role in their careers due to child care responsibilities? Again, I don't think so. It's a facet of American life. I tend to think it's a facet of human nature, but I certainly haven't studied it extensively.
    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
    Robert Southwell, S.J.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:41 PM
    Posts
    19,249
    Post Thanks / Like
    While men and women have roughly equal intelligence, human beings don't use random chance in mating strategies.

    Women drive these strategies so they tend to reject men who are less "successful" which has always meant that a significant number of men never marry. Men are less interested in a woman's "success" being more attracted to physical features.

    Few women will marry a man perceived to be less economically successful than themselves while many men will marry a woman who is young and fairly good-looking even if she lacks the potential to be as economically successful as the man.

    That's biology. There are exceptions but those exceptions don't change the rule.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:39 PM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    13,952
    Post Thanks / Like
    Women leaders will just waste a lot of time stopping to ask for directions anyway.


    *Runs away really, REALLY fast*
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  10. Likes Celeste Chalfonte liked this post
  11. #40
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:09 PM
    Posts
    13,812
    Post Thanks / Like
    Around 1910 the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage published a pamphlet listing their arguments against letting women vote. The top reason listed: BECAUSE 90% of the women either do not want it or do not care.

    Personally, I don't believe that what women want and care about is biologically determined by virtue of their sex.

    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

Posting Permissions

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