Politics Women in leadership roles, a positive for human kind

[Carringbush2010]

Over the last 300 years we've seen the rise of matriarchy, anywhere from Marie Antionette to Marg Thatcher to Queen Vic to Julia Gillard to Angela Merkel.

And probably over the time of human existence, the difference being it is increasing that women have held and do hold positions of power.

Funny as time goes on, peace has accelerated, forever increasing, in the last 300 years and more and more women have had influence over the world. Coincidence? I don't think so.

From my own point of view women are by and large more measured.

I'll admit this is a simplistic take, none the less it is clear that women in power use less 'abrasive' measures to achieve compromise (read outcome). As is evident over history, yes of course there are anomalies, Thatcher being an example.

Either or, women in power, whether being a team leader on the warehouse floor to a leader of nations give the impression of being more 'civil'.

As an analogy, my boss is a woman, in the highest level of warehousing - mining, this is not chump change stocking shelves at Coles supermarkets, it is the highest level and requires tertiary certification to even get an interview.

She has her team humming, not through a combative mindset but rather through civil discussion and compromise.

I'm not for a second suggesting that male leaders are the antithesis of civil and compromise, just that women leaders are moreso by and large more civil and compromising.

Seems to me that as time goes on, women are better in positions of power

Are we heading to a better world with the coming matriarchy? I think so.

Discuss.

 

[the_interloper]

Over the last 300 years we've seen the rise of matriarchy, anywhere from Marie Antionette to Marg Thatcher to Queen Vic to Julia Gillard to Angela Merkel.

And probably over the time of human existence, the difference being it is increasing that women have held and do hold positions of power.

Funny as time goes on, peace has accelerated, forever increasing, in the last 300 years and more and more women have had influence over the world. Coincidence? I don't think so.

From my own point of view women are by and large more measured.

I'll admit this is a simplistic take, none the less it is clear that women in power use less 'abrasive' measures to achieve compromise (read outcome). As is evident over history, yes of course there are anomalies, Thatcher being an example.

Either or, women in power, whether being a team leader on the warehouse floor to a leader of nations give the impression of being more 'civil'.

As an analogy, my boss is a woman, in the highest level of warehousing - mining, this is not chump change stocking shelves at Coles supermarkets, it is the highest level and requires tertiary certification to even get an interview.

She has her team humming, not through a combative mindset but rather through civil discussion and compromise.

I'm not for a second suggesting that male leaders are the antithesis of civil and compromise, just that women leaders are moreso by and large more civil and compromising.

Seems to me that as time goes on, women are better in positions of power

Are we heading to a better world with the coming matriarchy? I think so.

Discuss.

I think if you're looking at modern management styles it probably suits a woman's disposition in general, requires empathy and ability to work with the person they're managing, not making them a square peg in a round hole.

This is probably going to be more important going forward when the current teenagers are in the workforce, a lot of old blokes who have the old school style just won't do well and will probably end up blaming "kids of today".

 

[liz]

A very small number of women sporadically occupying roles as leaders of countries does not constitute a matriarchy. Merely a slight cracking of the mostly impenetrable patriarchy that has been the dominant form of governance for most parts of the world for most of “civilised” human history.

 

[faible]

Over the last 300 years we've seen the rise of matriarchy, anywhere from Marie Antionette to Marg Thatcher to Queen Vic to Julia Gillard to Angela Merkel.

And probably over the time of human existence, the difference being it is increasing that women have held and do hold positions of power.

Funny as time goes on, peace has accelerated, forever increasing, in the last 300 years and more and more women have had influence over the world. Coincidence? I don't think so.

From my own point of view women are by and large more measured.

I'll admit this is a simplistic take, none the less it is clear that women in power use less 'abrasive' measures to achieve compromise (read outcome). As is evident over history, yes of course there are anomalies, Thatcher being an example.

Either or, women in power, whether being a team leader on the warehouse floor to a leader of nations give the impression of being more 'civil'.

As an analogy, my boss is a woman, in the highest level of warehousing - mining, this is not chump change stocking shelves at Coles supermarkets, it is the highest level and requires tertiary certification to even get an interview.

She has her team humming, not through a combative mindset but rather through civil discussion and compromise.

I'm not for a second suggesting that male leaders are the antithesis of civil and compromise, just that women leaders are moreso by and large more civil and compromising.

Seems to me that as time goes on, women are better in positions of power

Are we heading to a better world with the coming matriarchy? I think so.

Discuss.

I think you're getting correlation vs causation wrong. IMO it's not that women are better in positions of power, but that the (fewer) women who end up there are very good at what they do.

Women making it to very high levels of management in large companies have no real option except to be extremely competent. There's no 'jobs for the boys' option for them.

Way too many men in middle management through executive management get there on who they know, not what they know, and end up being not very good at leading people.

There's plenty of very competent male leaders out there, many of them not in executive positions at large corporates, that have adjusted their management style to suit modern organisations and modern staff cohorts. The era of combative, top-down dictatorship as leadership is long gone. From the AFL to trades, to the corporate sector we're seeing management needing to be more holistic, more civil, and more compassionate, because people simply won't tolerate being treated poorly the way they used to.

There is also merit in having diversity of experiences in an organisation as well, from memory large corporates that have added female board members generally see improved performance.

 

[Carringbush2010]

A very small number of women sporadically occupying roles as leaders of countries does not constitute a matriarchy. Merely a slight cracking of the mostly impenetrable patriarchy that has been the dominant form of governance for most parts of the world for most of “civilised” human history.

Patriarchy and matriarchy has been in existence since human kind has been or even since mammalia has existed. Hierarchy by its nature is organic, it's required to store order among the 'pack' (the family, group, workforce, nation) < in a nomadic sense.

Nomadic or 2024, hierarchy is still organic by its nature (and required, otherwise we have anarchy) and it is not determined by 'numbers of'.

The point of the thread is to highlight the seemingly more 'efficient' style of leadership that femininity brings, more and more in the last few hundred years human kind has taken notice and is turning to a different hierarchy in certain situations / positions from the no one knows about like factory fore person to leader of nations.

And that is only growing, and probably for good reason and dare I say necessary reasons.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think you're getting correlation vs causation wrong. IMO it's not that women are better in positions of power, but that the (fewer) women who end up there are very good at what they do.

I think you're speculating tbh, this has a sense of 'women have to be better in merit than any other candidate just coz they're women and by auto default they'll be discriminated against just coz they're not men, even before the job is available'

I don't subscribe to that, that's in the past now, No corporation is gonna risk reputation and retribution by snubbing women for leadership positions just to be discriminatory or ignorant.

If you're a Forbes 500 company (or any successful corporation) you're gonna hire women to power on merit, not on quota or coz society says we should.

There's no 'jobs for the boys' option for them

Again, even if society says 'you must hire women coz fair' i:e quota, there is no corporation that is gonna hire purely on quota.

If they have to hire a woman because there numbers require to satisfy the quota, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll go sourcing the best possible candidate for the job.

Way too many men in middle management through executive management get there on who they know, not what they know, and end up being not very good at leading people.

Maybe in lower order organizations like small business, highly unlikely (on a large scale or the 'norm') in big successful organizations or leading nations or military for example.

There is also merit in having diversity of experiences in an organisation as well, from memory large corporates that have added female board members generally see improved performance.

Of course there's merit in diversity, but it's not like 'she's a she we'll employ her to a position of power just coz' or 'this person is from a different background, we'll employ that person for diversity reasons regardless of their skill', no successful business will do that.

Merit will come first and foremost every time.

To be honest you've brought talking points purely from a corporate perspective to point out the inequalities of how women have been ignored / mistreated for positions of leadership.

The point of thread or my opinion is that the world in all and sundry scenarios are viewing women are better leaders and achieve outcome / better outcome than the traditional patriarchal type. (mostly), and are increasingly adopting women to leadership positions.

 

[faible]

I think you're speculating tbh, this has a sense of 'women have to be better in merit than any other candidate just coz they're women and by auto default they'll be discriminated against just coz they're not men, even before the job is available'

I don't subscribe to that, that's in the past now, No corporation is gonna risk reputation and retribution by snubbing women for leadership positions just to be discriminatory or ignorant.

If you're a Forbes 500 company (or any successful corporation) you're gonna hire women to power on merit, not on quota or coz society says we should.

Again, even if society says 'you must hire women coz fair' i:e quota, there is no corporation that is gonna hire purely on quota.

If they have to hire a woman because there numbers require to satisfy the quota, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll go sourcing the best possible candidate for the job.

Maybe in lower order organizations like small business, highly unlikely (on a large scale or the 'norm') in big successful organizations or leading nations or military for example.

Of course there's merit in diversity, but it's not like 'she's a she we'll employ her to a position of power just coz' or 'this person is from a different background, we'll employ that person for diversity reasons regardless of their skill', no successful business will do that.

Merit will come first and foremost every time.

To be honest you've brought talking points purely from a corporate perspective to point out the inequalities of how women have been ignored / mistreated for positions of leadership.

The point of thread or my opinion is that the world in all and sundry scenarios are viewing women are better leaders and achieve outcome / better outcome than the traditional patriarchal type. (mostly), and are increasingly adopting women to leadership positions.

So to clarify; you'd like to ignore everything I said, plus a significant amount of reality, in order to persist with the belief that your opinion is the only possible version of events.

Seems a touch pointless to have bothered to make a thread.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So to clarify; you'd like to ignore everything I said, plus a significant amount of reality, in order to persist with the belief that your opinion is the only possible version of events.

Seems a touch pointless to have bothered to make a thread.

I haven't ignored anything you've said, I've replied my opinion.

If you wanna grind your axe about whatever, fine do that, and if you wanna throw your toys out of the cot coz you don't like the reply, that's fine too, I'll just call it out like I have just now.

Just for you.

 

[faible]

I haven't ignored anything you've said, I've replied my opinion.

If you wanna grind your axe about whatever, fine do that, and if you wanna throw your toys out of the cot coz you don't like the reply, that's fine too, I'll just call it out like I have just now.

Just for you.

Your entire post was 'yeah nah it's a meritocracy'. Whilst making sweeping generalisations about 'efficient female management'.

 

[burge13]

I think you're getting correlation vs causation wrong. IMO it's not that women are better in positions of power, but that the (fewer) women who end up there are very good at what they do.

Women making it to very high levels of management in large companies have no real option except to be extremely competent. There's no 'jobs for the boys' option for them.

Way too many men in middle management through executive management get there on who they know, not what they know, and end up being not very good at leading people.

There's plenty of very competent male leaders out there, many of them not in executive positions at large corporates, that have adjusted their management style to suit modern organisations and modern staff cohorts. The era of combative, top-down dictatorship as leadership is long gone. From the AFL to trades, to the corporate sector we're seeing management needing to be more holistic, more civil, and more compassionate, because people simply won't tolerate being treated poorly the way they used to.

There is also merit in having diversity of experiences in an organisation as well, from memory large corporates that have added female board members generally see improved performance.

You're living a very sheltered life if you don't think women are hiring their friends in senior leadership at a very similar rate to what men did/do...

What you say was probably true 20 years ago, sure. I've seen many examples in my working life of women being hired solely on 'who they know' with VERY little expertise. There's also quotas for 'women in leadership' to cover the nepotism or dodgy hiring. You're ignoring a lot equality improvement tbh

I've even worked in a health network where male applicants were ignored as a basic practice. Now I sure felt like I won that role on merit being 1 of 4 blokes in over 500 staff! Coincidently, the 2 directors were women and absolutely ****ing useless which led to a lot of stress leave and work cover claims beneath them. Hired by their GM friend...

When I worked as a workforce analyst 5ish years ago, over 80% of leadership roles in health were filled by women yet we still had "we are committed to interviewing women for leadership roles" on every job ad. "Equality" that isn't real equality FTW

The best boss I've had was female and worst was male (by quite some distance) before any claims of sexism or the like are thrown back.

 

[faible]

You're living a very sheltered life if you don't think women are hiring their friends in senior leadership at a very similar rate to what men did/do...

I suspect this is something not borne out in reality given the number of CEOs for ASX 300 companies.

 

[burge13]

I suspect this is something not borne out in reality given the number of CEOs for ASX 300 companies.

These are the people not reflective of reality tbh. $20m a year for roles that in some cases are completely replaceable. Whack a BF poster in for a quarter as Comm Bank CEO, profits won't drop a cent. Just a shame the world hasn't cottoned onto this

Doesn't invalidate what I said otherwise. Female nepotism in this day and age is still very common despite your claims of otherwise

 

[faible]

These are the people not reflective of reality tbh. $20m a year for roles that in some cases are completely replaceable. Whack a BF poster in for a quarter as Comm Bank CEO, profits won't drop a cent. Just a shame the world hasn't cottoned onto this

Doesn't invalidate what I said otherwise. Female nepotism in this day and age is still very common despite your claims of otherwise

I was fairly specific about what I was talking about:

very high levels of management in large companies

But yes, I will agree that given female people are still, people, they're not immune to bias.

 

[Gethelred]

These are the people not reflective of reality tbh. $20m a year for roles that in some cases are completely replaceable. Whack a BF poster in for a quarter as Comm Bank CEO, profits won't drop a cent. Just a shame the world hasn't cottoned onto this

Doesn't invalidate what I said otherwise. Female nepotism in this day and age is still very common despite your claims of otherwise

 

[Carringbush2010]

Your entire post was 'yeah nah it's a meritocracy'. Whilst making sweeping generalisations about 'efficient female management'.

And? Since when has putting women in positions of leadership been solely about quotas?

Are you suggesting women aren't employed on merit as much as men are? I'd say that's rather offensive, bordering on misogynistic.

And you accuse me of making generalizations about efficient female management. Talk about ironic.

Look I don't know why you've got a beef about this thread, you're welcome to leave or continue your toy throwing, couldn't care less but I'll leave there.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You're living a very sheltered life if you don't think women are hiring their friends in senior leadership at a very similar rate to what men did/do...

What you say was probably true 20 years ago, sure. I've seen many examples in my working life of women being hired solely on 'who they know' with VERY little expertise. There's also quotas for 'women in leadership' to cover the nepotism or dodgy hiring. You're ignoring a lot equality improvement tbh

I've even worked in a health network where male applicants were ignored as a basic practice. Now I sure felt like I won that role on merit being 1 of 4 blokes in over 500 staff! Coincidently, the 2 directors were women and absolutely ****ing useless which led to a lot of stress leave and work cover claims beneath them. Hired by their GM friend...

When I worked as a workforce analyst 5ish years ago, over 80% of leadership roles in health were filled by women yet we still had "we are committed to interviewing women for leadership roles" on every job ad. "Equality" that isn't real equality FTW

The best boss I've had was female and worst was male (by quite some distance) before any claims of sexism or the like are thrown back.

I disagree with the premise of this post, your analogy imo is probably an exception rather than the rule.

Sure, the 'vibe' you're getting is 'woman are a given a leg up, coz inequality', but I don't think companies think or hire on narrative. If they wanna survive they're gonna hire on merit first and foremost every time, if they have to fill a quota, then they'll seek the best possible candidate, not just coz they're a woman.

Your 'vibe' might apply to menial jobs that just about anyone can do, but I seriously doubt small business or corporates or political parties or military arms of govt. etc.are gonna hire females to performance positions 'coz quota and inequality'

 

[burge13]

I disagree with the premise of this post, your analogy imo is probably an exception rather than the rule.

Sure, the 'vibe' you're getting is 'woman are a given a leg up, coz inequality', but I don't think companies think or hire on narrative. If they wanna survive they're gonna hire on merit first and foremost every time, if they have to fill a quota, then they'll seek the best possible candidate, not just coz they're a woman.

Your 'vibe' might apply to menial jobs that just about anyone can do, but I seriously doubt small business or corporates or political parties or military arms of govt. etc.are gonna hire females to performance positions 'coz quota and inequality'

BHP have a leadership quota so this post is terrible haha

Companies don't hire people, people do. Those people hire their friends

 

[Carringbush2010]

BHP have a leadership quota so this post is terrible haha

Companies don't hire people, people do. Those people hire their friends

If you think that major corporations (or their people) hire just willy nilly coz mates, and if you think this is widespread then you need to provide evidence of this to convince me.

I'm not for one second believing that their people don't hire candidates on merit, and purely hire on quotas / mates. It'd be catastrophic to put someone in a leadership / performance who's got no idea what they're doing.

 

[burge13]

If you think that major corporations (or their people) hire just willy nilly coz mates, and if you think this is widespread then you need to provide evidence of this to convince me.

I'm not for one second believing that their people don't hire candidates on merit, and purely hire on quotas / mates. It'd be catastrophic to put someone in a leadership / performance who's got no idea what they're doing.

I never said "purely"

It doesn't happen purely for men either

I said women hire their mates just as much as men do in reply to someone claiming "jobs for the boys doesn't exist for women". It absolutely does

It helps to actually read threads. I swear the SRP read 1 sentence and fly off the rails arguing shit without reading any context

 

[Carringbush2010]

I never said "purely"

It doesn't happen purely for men either

I said women hire their mates just as much as men do in reply to someone claiming "jobs for the boys doesn't exist for women". It absolutely does

It helps to actually read threads. I swear the SRP read 1 sentence and fly off the rails arguing shit without reading any context

All of which is not thread relevant, I didn't post the thread to have a culture war around quotas and jobs for the boys / mates.

I posted the thread to discuss the efficiency of females in leadership roles in anything from factory floor to the highest office in any given nation, and how they differentiate in method and style from their male counterparts.

And the meritocracy / validity of their candidacy for those roles.

 

[burge13]

All of which is not thread relevant, I didn't post the thread to have a culture war around quotas and jobs for the boys / mates.

I posted the thread to discuss the efficiency of females in leadership roles in anything from factory floor to the highest office in any given nation, and how they differentiate in method and style from their male counterparts.

And the meritocracy / validity of their candidacy for those roles.

I dont care why you started the thread. I replied to specific claims which were crap

It's 2024 ffs. Women are as 'efficient' as men are in leadership, it doesn't need to be discussed. Discussing/questioning it at all is sexist in itself

There are good female & bad managers. There are good & bad male managers

/thread

 

[Gethelred]

This is going well, I see.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I dont care why you started the thread. I replied to specific claims which were crap

It's 2024 ffs. Women are as 'efficient' as men are in leadership, it doesn't need to be discussed. Discussing/questioning it at all is sexist in itself

There are good female & bad managers. There are good & bad male managers

/thread

Thanks for your melt opinion burge. lol.

If you think discussing the topic is sexist in the first place then why bother posting in the thread?

 

[burge13]

Thanks for your melt opinion burge. lol.

If you think discussing the topic is sexist in the first place then why bother posting in the thread?

Yet again, reading comprehension in the SRP at a 3rd grade level

I replied to specific claims which were crap

And yes it is sexist, why would you need to differentiate men and women? There is no need. Identity politics failures

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yet again, reading comprehension in the SRP at a 3rd grade level

I replied to specific claims which were crap

And yes it is sexist, why would you need to differentiate men and women? There is no need. Identity politics failures

If you don't like it, or if you find it sexist or offensive, you're welcome to look away / ignore.

You've got your nose out of joint coz someone claimed 'jobs for the boys, women are discriminated against' and you replied to it.

I'm saying the thread isn't about culture wars, take your infantile fight to a pm with your opposition if you must.

I'll leave it there.