Politics Women in leadership roles, a positive for human kind

[Geelong_Sicko]

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.

They should have gotten the teacher on a recording. From the sounds of it there should be no room in the educative process for attitudes like that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

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.

Excellent point, whether or not liberalism is the cause (or enabler, if you will) doesn't really matter. It's a good thing for human kind in general.

Slightly off this discussion, maybe the thread title is a little abrasive, and reads as combative 'Women will take over'

Maybe it should read as. 'Women in matriarchal roles, a positive for human kind'

 

[Carringbush2010]

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.

This is not what the thread is about, can understand the previous thread title has misled some posters as some sort of 'matriarchal take over of society' and you've replied to that narrative.

While I agree there is unfair imbalance in regard to your dot points here, and even support your sentiment to a point, it was not my intention to whip up a gender war. The thread was meant to discuss the competency of females in leadership roles.

So apologies to you Grumpy, I think your viewpoint would make a combative and valid thread, reckon you should post one on your arguments here.

I've edited the thread title.

 

[liz]

So apologies to you Grumpy, I think your viewpoint would make a combative and valid thread, reckon you should post one on your arguments here.

I think his "arguments" need some actual supporting evidence.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think his "arguments" need some actual supporting evidence.

Agreed, but grumpy's arguments are off topic.

IF what Grumpyshades says has some truth, then I don't believe that should be. There does seem to be belief of, whether or not it is true, even given there's been claim of 'unfair' or 'bias' against men in this thread, well ................. that is.

A topic for another thread.

 

[Gethelred]

Agreed, but grumpy's arguments are off topic.

IF what Grumpyshades says has some truth, then I don't believe that should be. There does seem to be belief of, whether or not it is true, even given there's been claim of 'unfair' or 'bias' against men in this thread, well ................. that is.

A topic for another thread.

Probably a topic for another site. We don't have much time for MRA's on here.

 

[liz]

Probably a topic for another site. We don't have much time for MRA's on here.

MRAs?

 

[Gethelred]

MRAs?

Men's Rights Activists.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Men's Rights Activists.

Haven't heard of them, anyone else on here heard of them?

Again off topic, but that's probably a reason (in part) why some men and young men in particular feel alienated by society (driven by msm reporting). There's a thread for this.

Society/Culture - Why are young males now more right wing then older males?

Found this finding staggering. Usually young people are less conservative then older people (for numerous economic and cultural reasons). And this is still true of females. However, this poll asking australians whether they would support trump or not finds that not only do young men not support...

www.bigfooty.com

Any wrong doing against men it's crickets and tumbleweeds and society (msm won't report it) goes meh. Women have all sorts of support that is saturated all over msm and there's no stone un turned looking for wrong doing (that's the impression some men get anyway) against women to drive attention for msm (read revenue).

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, the above is my two cents and I'll leave that there.

If anyone wants to discuss the merit, or argue why it is not meritorious - at your peril (I am not the peril btw) of women in leadership roles then this is the thread. I get the feeling though it will be short lived coz it is has positive vibes.

 

[Grumpyshades]

This is not what the thread is about, can understand the previous thread title has misled some posters as some sort of 'matriarchal take over of society' and you've replied to that narrative.

While I agree there is unfair imbalance in regard to your dot points here, and even support your sentiment to a point, it was not my intention to whip up a gender war. The thread was meant to discuss the competency of females in leadership roles.

So apologies to you Grumpy, I think your viewpoint would make a combative and valid thread, reckon you should post one on your arguments here.

I've edited the thread title.

all good

 

[Mitchell Madness]

QUALIFIED women in leadership roles is a positive. Tokenistic appointments sets humanity back

 

[the_interloper]

QUALIFIED women in leadership roles is a positive. Tokenistic appointments sets humanity back

This is why the recent climate in the corporate world really advantages capable women. I'm talking about women who would have been successful anyway but since they are in such demand they can write their own ticket, at least in IT where I work.

I was saying this to a female colleague recently who is a bit uncomfortable with it all. I reckon nepotism costs you job wise often, so if it works in your favour you might as well embrace it.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

This is why the recent climate in the corporate world really advantages capable women. I'm talking about women who would have been successful anyway but since they are in such demand they can write their own ticket, at least in IT where I work.

I was saying this to a female colleague recently who is a bit uncomfortable with it all. I reckon nepotism costs you job wise often, so if it works in your favour you might as well embrace it.

I agree.

I do not hate any woman who capitalises on the political climate to further their career (assuming they do so legally!).

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that affirmative action sets things back in the long run though

 

[schneebly111]

I was saying this to a female colleague recently who is a bit uncomfortable with it all. I reckon nepotism costs you job wise often, so if it works in your favour you might as well embrace it.

I wonder if this was because some dickhead damn abused her for assuming she got her job as a token hire? And she just wishes for all the flak to go away?

In that case the problem is with the dickhead not the woman

 

[Kram]

Department of Education is very female dominant.

This was at the private school but someone claimed they enquired about a job there and was told point blank "We don't hire male education assistants".

 

[the_interloper]

I wonder if this was because some dickhead damn abused her for assuming she got her job as a token hire? And she just wishes for all the flak to go away?

In that case the problem is with the dickhead not the woman

Nah it's not that, she just can't be ****ed. Another colleague does all the "women in IT" events and tried to enccourage her to go along, she's just not interested.

 

[Scotland]

'Women in XYZ' is usually misguided nonsense.

The positive in women in leadership or STEM fields or executive positions or whatever category isn't 50/50 to the census takers is that by not having women you are effectively drawing from half the talent pool.

People tend to lean pretty heavily on stereotypes about women being better communicators, more collaborative, more empathetic etc. which in certain female dominant industries like healthcare and primary education is important but in most other fields is a bit insulting to distil the impact of women down to just being nicer. I've worked with brilliant women and some of them have been absolutely ruthless. Which is why they are successful and their male equivalents who need their wives to choose their clothes each day are not.

 

[the_interloper]

'Women in XYZ' is usually misguided nonsense.

The positive in women in leadership or STEM fields or executive positions or whatever category isn't 50/50 to the census takers is that by not having women you are effectively drawing from half the talent pool.

People tend to lean pretty heavily on stereotypes about women being better communicators, more collaborative, more empathetic etc. which in certain female dominant industries like healthcare and primary education is important but in most other fields is a bit insulting to distil the impact of women down to just being nicer. I've worked with brilliant women and some of them have been absolutely ruthless. Which is why they are successful and their male equivalents who need their wives to choose their clothes each day are not.

I wouldn't agree with that, I mean if you look at the gender ratios in STEM degrees it's overwhelmingly male, not sure on the actual stats.

 

[Scotland]

I wouldn't agree with that, I mean if you look at the gender ratios in STEM degrees it's overwhelmingly male, not sure on the actual stats.

In reality absolutely. Same as if you choose to hire only female primary school teachers you aren't excluding half the available applicants, just the 10-20% that are male.

The whole idea of trying to make every field that is male dominated 50/50 is pretty dumb. You want to remove barriers so that people feel they can pursue what they want to pursue. I'm male and don't particularly want to be a boilermaker, nor do I think I would be any good at it. If you assume for the sake of argument a boilermaker makes twice what a nurse does, then with that in play there still aren't many female boilermakers. If the salaries were somehow made equal, there probably wouldn't be a huge influx of male boilermakers becoming nurses. If you started an all female boilermaker academy with 100 apprenticeships you would struggle find that many interested applicants in a cap city. People make choices.

 

[smelly cat]

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.

I had my suspicions that you had no idea when you led with Marie Antoinette as an example of females excelling in positions of power. But I decided to read on.

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.

What planet are you living on?
Just Google 20th century conflicts and soak up how far off the mark you are.

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

Good for you.

I'll admit this is a simplistic take

Yes it is. And I'm glad you said it.

, none the less it is clear that women in power use less 'abrasive' measures to achieve compromise (read outcome)

It is clear? Oh really?
Can you prove it? Or is this unsubstantiated garbage?

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'.

Well if you say so champ it must be so.
I can't believe the solution to civility was in front of us all along. I guess the ladies from 'Real Housewives of Melbourne' should run a class and teach us some manners.

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.

I don't think you know what 'analogy' is.
But I'm glad you like your boss. She sounds excellent at what she does. But it has nothing to do with her gender.

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

See above.
When you live a little longer you'll find that this is a trait of a good boss. Not women in general.

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.

What the feck are you basing this on?

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.

In a VERY strong field, this is some of the dumbest material I've ever read on big footy.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I had my suspicions that you had no idea when you led with Marie Antoinette as an example of females excelling in positions of power

I see you're in your normal combative trolling mood. Ok, the premise of the thread is women in leadership roles, and she's not a good example to follow.

Got that wrong, meh, sue me.

What planet are you living on?
Just Google 20th century conflicts and soak up how far off the mark you are.

Then many would disagree with you, my remark here, like the thread title is opinion. So yeah as time has gone on, human kind has evolved to be less violent imo.

It is clear? Oh really?
Can you prove it? Or is this unsubstantiated garbage?

I'll admit I've 'generalized' that one.

Well if you say so champ it must be so.
I can't believe the solution to civility was in front of us all along. I guess the ladies from 'Real Housewives of Melbourne' should run a class and teach us some manners.

Again, my opinion based on personal experience.

She sounds excellent at what she does. But it has nothing to do with her gender.

Again, I'm speculating it could be . Sounds like your opinion is that it is just not possible men and women can't be different i:e women cannot possibly be less combative than men and that quality leadership is wholly and solely down to a person.

Is this your opinion?

When you live a little longer you'll find that this is a trait of a good boss. Not women in general.

See above.

What the feck are you basing this on?

Again, it's my opinion that it's a possibility.

In a VERY strong field, this is some of the dumbest material I've ever read on big footy.

You've read it that way because you've incorrectly assumed I've posted this as a fait accompli. no ifs buts or maybes.

When it is my opinion, not substantiated fact.

Next you'll pull out the 'Why even bother with the thread then?' card, because it's a discussion forum, where you can debate opinions on subjects, like this one.

Thanks for your contribution feline of whiff.

 

[Gethelred]

... as though 'opinion', based on personal experiences, cannot ever be wrong.

Cue: "I never said that, quote where I said that!"

 

[smelly cat]

I see you're in your normal combative trolling mood. Ok, the premise of the thread is women in leadership roles, and she's not a good example to follow.

Got that wrong, meh, sue me.

Then many would disagree with you, my remark here, like the thread title is opinion. So yeah as time has gone on, human kind has evolved to be less violent imo.

View attachment 2187761

I'll admit I've 'generalized' that one.

Again, my opinion based on personal experience.

Again, I'm speculating it could be . Sounds like your opinion is that it is just not possible men and women can't be different i:e women cannot possibly be less combative than men and that quality leadership is wholly and solely down to a person.

Is this your opinion?

See above.

Again, it's my opinion that it's a possibility.

You've read it that way because you've incorrectly assumed I've posted this as a fait accompli. no ifs buts or maybes.

When it is my opinion, not substantiated fact.

Next you'll pull out the 'Why even bother with the thread then?' card, because it's a discussion forum, where you can debate opinions on subjects, like this one.

Thanks for your contribution feline of whiff.

Maybe you would better at this if you were a female.

 

[the_interloper]

... as though 'opinion', based on personal experiences, cannot ever be wrong.

Cue: "I never said that, quote where I said that!"

Well opinions can't be wrong by definition can they?

 

[Gethelred]

Well opinions can't be wrong by definition can they?

An opinion can absolutely be wrong. An opinion on something that is subjective - as something that is subjective cannot be proven incorrect - is why people get confused.