Politics Women in leadership roles, a positive for human kind

[Grumpyshades]

we live in gynocentric culture where things are geared towards women not men.
The workforce dominance of men is purely a result of men being the financial slaves of women and children (yes its exactly where the money goes)..The net effect is a small percentage of men reaching the top of their fields to occupy the majority of managerial positions

Some confuse this as a patriarchy but its the direct result of women in society being valued higher than men

Women now want these 'high end' jobs without the mass sacrifice that men have endured for centuries

 

[Gethelred]

 

[TheEscapeClub]

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.

BHP do it all the time. With men previously but even more so now with women because of their aspirational want to have a 50 / 50 workforce.

I've never heard of women hiring because of some old mates network, but in mining they don't need it in the current climate anyway.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

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.

Until a couple of years ago, the best two managers I've ever had were both in the military, a man at number one and a female at number two. A couple of years ago I worked at a gold mine in Ballarat and my manager was a gay man, he's easily the best manager I've had in my life, he just brought energy and a great vide to the place. I'd love to get him to where I am now, but I 100% know the teams here wouldn't accept him. We only have one female working in the place and she's the cleaner.

In what is now a 40 year working life, those three (3) stand head and shoulders above the rest. Every single manager I had in mining over a decade was deplorable, with the exception of one female they were all men. The woman was the worst of the lot and that's saying something and she was warehousing. One thing I have observed with female managers is that they're likely to be campaigners to other female employees.

The world for the most part may be better with woman leaders, but where it falls down is that it needs to be everyone. Will China or a Middle Eastern Country ever have a woman in charge (not counting Israel)? If not then the rest of the world might be kind to each other with the militaristic types taking advantage of the niceness, or just not giving a ****.

With a few exceptions, most female leaders in the upper, upper echelons seem to behave more like aggressive men (how they got there in the first place, monkey see, money do) rather than your civil and compromising type you mention. I really wish that Gillard was given a much better go when she was in. Someone like Ardern might be the type you're looking for, but while she may have been compassionate, she seems to have failed in the running a successful country type of thing and was duly voted out after only one term.

 

[Carringbush2010]

BHP do it all the time. With men previously but even more so now with women because of their aspirational want to have a 50 / 50 workforce.

I've never heard of women hiring because of some old mates network, but in mining they don't need it in the current climate anyway.

If that was the case they'd be bankrupt.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The world for the most part may be better with woman leaders, but where it falls down is that it needs to be everyone.

Does it? This sounds a bit like, 'not perfect then don't bother'

Someone like Ardern might be the type you're looking for, but while she may have been compassionate, she seems to have failed in the running a successful country type of thing and was duly voted out after only one term.

That may be a bit harsh, plenty before her who've been worse pm's (and probably will be after).

See below, just because female leaders can be aggressive does not mean they can't be compromising to an optimal outcome.

So Adern might be perceived as a 'soft' touch. Yeah that has advantages, but when I talk about female leaders I'm not just talking about 'soft' touch types.

With a few exceptions, most female leaders in the upper, upper echelons seem to behave more like aggressive men (how they got there in the first place, monkey see, money do)

This sounds speculative, not convinced that female leaders behave like alphas in a monkey see monkey do.

They may be aggressive by their own nature, and no I don't think it means 'combative' or counterproductive.

One can be aggressive and negotiable at the same time, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive imo.

 

[Carringbush2010]

we live in gynocentric culture where things are geared towards women not men.
The workforce dominance of men is purely a result of men being the financial slaves of women and children (yes its exactly where the money goes)..The net effect is a small percentage of men reaching the top of their fields to occupy the majority of managerial positions

Some confuse this as a patriarchy but its the direct result of women in society being valued higher than men

Women now want these 'high end' jobs without the mass sacrifice that men have endured for centuries

Parody thread that way >.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

If that was the case they'd be bankrupt.

BS, any idiot could run Iron Ore, mining it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Plenty at the Superintendent level and above that are useless.

I used to feel sorry for the women in these roles, parachuted in from completely unrelated industries and floundering, but in the end realised that they were putting their hand up and taking the money, so they get what they deserve. That goes for any incompetent manager.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Does it? This sounds a bit like, 'not perfect then don't bother'

That may be a bit harsh, plenty before her who've been worse pm's (and probably will be after).

See below, just because female leaders can be aggressive does not mean they can't be compromising to an optimal outcome.

So Adern might be perceived as a 'soft' touch. Yeah that has advantages, but when I talk about female leaders I'm not just talking about 'soft' touch types.

This sounds speculative, not convinced that female leaders behave like alphas in a monkey see monkey do.

They may be aggressive by their own nature, and no I don't think it means 'combative' or counterproductive.

One can be aggressive and negotiable at the same time, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive imo.

Ardern wasn't perceived as a soft touch, she was perceived as incompetent.

 

[Kram]

Department of Education is very female dominant.

 

[rank and file]

Department of Education is very female dominant.

Mate's 15yo son got suspended from school for calling the teacher a dumb campaigner
Fair enough.
In tears he told his angry parents she said males were no good,especially white ones.
Mate's wife went in for re-entry interview teacher admitted she said this and asked,
"Don't you agree?'
Young fella doesn't go to that school anymore.

 

[the_interloper]

Mate's 15yo son got suspended from school for calling the teacher a dumb campaigner
Fair enough.
In tears he told his angry parents she said males were no good,especially white ones.
Mate's wife went in for re-entry interview teacher admitted she said this and asked,
"Don't you agree?'
Young fella doesn't go to that school anymore.

Agreed, sounds like he was right though.

 

[Grumpyshades]

Mate's 15yo son got suspended from school for calling the teacher a dumb campaigner
Fair enough.
In tears he told his angry parents she said males were no good,especially white ones.
Mate's wife went in for re-entry interview teacher admitted she said this and asked,
"Don't you agree?'
Young fella doesn't go to that school anymore.

its another example of a gynocentric society..Women even in a professional capacity can say whatever derogatory or sexist thing they want about men with zero threat of any repercussions..any man even in private saying something even borderline sexist about women would be facing instant dismissal and blacklisted from ever working in that industry or others ever again.

 

[Carringbush2010]

BS, any idiot could run Iron Ore, mining it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

This is where our conversation ends.

 

[Carringbush2010]

.Women even in a professional capacity can say whatever derogatory or sexist thing they want about men with zero threat of any repercussions..any man even in private saying something even borderline sexist about women would be facing instant dismissal and blacklisted from ever working in that industry or others ever again.

NO ONE is allowed to say derogatory things about anyone in a professional environment.

 

[Grumpyshades]

NO ONE is allowed to say derogatory things about anyone in a professional environment.

as the previous post proved, the female teacher did so then repeated the sexist remark in a room full of parents and absolutely nothing happened to her

so we 100% proved who is wrong

 

[Carringbush2010]

as the previous post proved, the female teacher did so then repeated the sexist remark in a room full of parents and absolutely nothing happened to her

so we 100% proved who is wrong

This must be an exception to the rule, the LAW states as you cannot make derogatory comments about anyone in a workplace environment.

Just because we have a rare exception that someone got away with it does not equate to that this is widespread. It is not.

By the way, this has zero to do with the thread.

 

[Grumpyshades]

This must be an exception to the rule, the LAW states as you cannot make derogatory comments about anyone in a workplace environment.

Just because we have a rare exception that someone got away with it does not equate to that this is widespread. It is not.

By the way, this has zero to do with the thread.

you can pretend its an exception all you want

You start a thread espousing the merits a matriarchal society but get upset when posters point out the endless advantages women already have in society...weird

 

[rank and file]

as the previous post proved, the female teacher did so then repeated the sexist remark in a room full of parents and absolutely nothing happened to her

so we 100% proved who is wrong

It was a one on one.

This must be an exception to the rule, the LAW states as you cannot make derogatory comments about anyone in a workplace environment.

Just because we have a rare exception that someone got away with it does not equate to that this is widespread. It is not.

By the way, this has zero to do with the thread.

This LAW gets broken every day via workplace gossip professional or amateur.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

This is where our conversation ends.

Because I'm right.

 

[Jello_B]

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.

Do you work in a corporate environment?
Women absolutely get hired above men due to them being women, and even if they are less capable.
FWIW - studies undertaken by some of our staff identify that women don’t want this (quotas) as it leads to more discrimination.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Do you work in a corporate environment?
Women absolutely get hired above men due to them being women, and even if they are less capable.
FWIW - studies undertaken by some of our staff identify that women don’t want this (quotas) as it leads to more discrimination.

Did you read the op?

 

[Carringbush2010]

It was a one on one.

This LAW gets broken every day via workplace gossip professional or amateur.

And it's still the law. There's laws that state under 18s can't drink alcohol or smoke, that law gets broken too, it's still the law

I'm not going down a rabbit hole of whether or not females are hired just coz they're females, of course this happens but it's not widespread.

It's not what the thread is about.

 

[Seeds]

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.

Coincidence? No.

Causal? No.

Liberalism drove the reductions in world violence, increase in life expectancy, increase in education/health, acceleration of technology (including tech that reduced the time needed to do household chores), reduction in poverty rates (and now poverty levels) and advocation of human rights that argued all races and sexes deserved the same rights and opportunities. These achievements of liberalism freed women from religion, household chores and a repressive culture enabling them to get educated and slowly become leaders.

The peace achieved by liberalism is not an achievement of women. Its an achievement for women (and everyone really ). Liberalism is what should be given praise.

 

[Grumpyshades]

I'm not sure why the op keeps referring to the law as some sort of argument
as tens of thousands of men have experienced the law simply does not apply to women in so many instances

-women willfully damaging men's property = nothing happens to them

• women stealing men's property = nothing happens to them
• women perjure themselves in court = nothing happens to them
• women make false allegations against a man = nothing happens to them
• women blatantly refuse to follow court orders = nothing happens to them
• women distribute x rated pics of their ex = nothing happens to them
• women who have sex with their male underage students = nothing happens to them

all of these are against the law..Any man committing these offences would be looking at jail time..In Australia a man will get 60% more jail time than a woman committing the exact same crime..Fact!
The only thing the law proves is we blatantly live in a gynocentric society

Futhermore the only time a woman is held 'close' to the same accountability as a man is when they commit a criminal offence against another woman..They lose their female privilege card.