Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

Off Topic
181

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The point is that women seek out men for all sorts of different reasons. For every woman you post who has an ugly, highly successful husband, I can post an example of the opposite.
[/quote]

No, you cant.

You can post the weaksauce you posted which makes no sense whatsoever, because people have eyes you know?

Combined with human sexual dimorphism, studies that women always marry upwards when they can, even in Sweden, may the Mother Goddess be with them and of course that 60% of all men in history simply did not reproduce I have gutted your argument, set the remains on fire and right now I am pissing on the ashes.

- YouTube [/quote]
You haven’t gutted shit. You’ve simply distorted my argument to fit into a mold you are more familiar with. There is no link to testosterone and leadership qualities. Dominance is hardly a leadership quality. Do they go hand in hand sometimes? Sure.

I have gutted YOUR argument. See how that works? I can say shit that hasn’t happened as well. And I can sit here and make smug, snide comments that do nothing but inflate my own sense of self and ego just like you regularly resort to. I am pissing on you right now.

Now, back to the topic at hand. If testosterone is an inherent prerequisite for being a leader, how do you explain female-dominated societies in which, I assume, the HUMAN females do not have a higher level test than the men do? Why do societies like the Hibitoe Tribe in Papua New Guinea exist? Why is it that gender role reversal or a decrease in delineation between the two occur at all if testosterone is the primary factor in being a leader? If you are correct, then please explain to me why MATRIARCHIES have ever existed in human societies?

Surely, the Sardinians or most indigenous cultures in Asia and Africa that still operate within a largely agricultural society have existed and still do exist?

And let’s keep the animal kingdom out of this. Animals, mammals, birds, fish, whatever, they bear no comparison to human society. Human society has evolved immensely in most corners of the globe; animal societies have not. Again, another disingenuous argument that distracts from the main point on your part.

182

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
In Germany, this eventually led to the development of kindergartens (children gardens) where women were the teachers. But teaching was not seen as work but rather as a familial duty that women were best suited for. Of course, there was no legitimate basis for this assumption other than that women did NOT belong in the workforce, so by default they belonged at home.[/quote]

I would prefer that women fill the majority of jobs involving teaching and caring for children for the simple fact that 99% of pedophiles are male.

(I know this doesn’t directly address what you wrote, but your post triggered this thought.)

183

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
In Germany, this eventually led to the development of kindergartens (children gardens) where women were the teachers. But teaching was not seen as work but rather as a familial duty that women were best suited for. Of course, there was no legitimate basis for this assumption other than that women did NOT belong in the workforce, so by default they belonged at home.[/quote]

I would prefer that women fill the majority of jobs involving teaching and caring for children for the simple fact that 99% of pedophiles are male.

(I know this doesn’t directly address what you wrote, but your post triggered this thought.)
[/quote]

That is not necessarily true, women have way more undetectable ways to indulge in it than men do, as part of their professions.

184

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I’m saying that I realize there are abuses, as related anecdotally on these boards, but that I’m not sure the legal balance is out of whack. That’s not to say it’s fine, it’s saying I don’t know. Much of the evidence I see linked here that supports generalized outrage is false or skewed. [/quote]

The problem is that the legal system is trying to creat “balance” in the first place. My great grandmother had the same rights as my great grandfather, that is, equality before the law. What we’ve been moving towards since then, and what the hacks at Jezebel continue to whine about is “equality” after the law, which is enforced equality, which is not equality at all.

Also, what’s all this nonsense about the suffregetts being ugly? The vast, vast majority of women used to get married and have families, if they were capable of bearing children. Unmarried spinsters would have been such a small minority that they would have had a negligible impact. Most of the suffregetts would have been older women in their 40’s and 50’s who’s children were grown and out of the house and had too much time on their hands. Women have always worn makeup, but regardless women in their 40’s and 50’s just weren’t very attractive then, and aren’t now.

185

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
In Germany, this eventually led to the development of kindergartens (children gardens) where women were the teachers. But teaching was not seen as work but rather as a familial duty that women were best suited for. Of course, there was no legitimate basis for this assumption other than that women did NOT belong in the workforce, so by default they belonged at home.[/quote]

I would prefer that women fill the majority of jobs involving teaching and caring for children for the simple fact that 99% of pedophiles are male.

(I know this doesn’t directly address what you wrote, but your post triggered this thought.)
[/quote]

That’s pretty stupid logic though (no offense, I totally understand the sentiment). Carry that out to its natural conclusion and women will be the only ones allowed around children, period.

I wouldn’t want a woman coaching my son in baseball. i wouldn’t want a woman hired as the strength and conditioning coach for his football team. I wouldn’t want his Scout leader to be a woman if he were in the Boy Scouts, etc, etc.

186

[quote]orion wrote:
This reminded me of this.

Any man who does not get why this is hilarious is doing it wrong. [/quote]

Most of those are men.

187

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
In Germany, this eventually led to the development of kindergartens (children gardens) where women were the teachers. But teaching was not seen as work but rather as a familial duty that women were best suited for. Of course, there was no legitimate basis for this assumption other than that women did NOT belong in the workforce, so by default they belonged at home.[/quote]

I would prefer that women fill the majority of jobs involving teaching and caring for children for the simple fact that 99% of pedophiles are male.

(I know this doesn’t directly address what you wrote, but your post triggered this thought.)
[/quote]

That is not necessarily true, women have way more undetectable ways to indulge in it than men do, as part of their professions.[/quote]

Explain please.

188

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I’m saying that I realize there are abuses, as related anecdotally on these boards, but that I’m not sure the legal balance is out of whack. That’s not to say it’s fine, it’s saying I don’t know. Much of the evidence I see linked here that supports generalized outrage is false or skewed. [/quote]

The problem is that the legal system is trying to creat “balance” in the first place. My great grandmother had the same rights as my great grandfather, that is, equality before the law. What we’ve been moving towards since then, and what the hacks at Jezebel continue to whine about is “equality” after the law, which is enforced equality, which is not equality at all.

Also, what’s all this nonsense about the suffregetts being ugly? The vast, vast majority of women used to get married and have families, if they were capable of bearing children. Unmarried spinsters would have been such a small minority that they would have had a negligible impact. Most of the suffregetts would have been older women in their 40’s and 50’s who’s children were grown and out of the house and had too much time on their hands. Women have always worn makeup, but regardless women in their 40’s and 50’s just weren’t very attractive then, and aren’t now. [/quote]

Thank you for pointing out this fact about suffragettes. It’s yet another false premise that most people in here have been basing their arguments on. False premises lead to false conclusions for the most part, certainly in this thread.

189

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
In Germany, this eventually led to the development of kindergartens (children gardens) where women were the teachers. But teaching was not seen as work but rather as a familial duty that women were best suited for. Of course, there was no legitimate basis for this assumption other than that women did NOT belong in the workforce, so by default they belonged at home.[/quote]

I would prefer that women fill the majority of jobs involving teaching and caring for children for the simple fact that 99% of pedophiles are male.

(I know this doesn’t directly address what you wrote, but your post triggered this thought.)
[/quote]

That is not necessarily true, women have way more undetectable ways to indulge in it than men do, as part of their professions.[/quote]

Explain please.[/quote]

Yeah, really. I can’t wait to hear this one.

190

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The point is that women seek out men for all sorts of different reasons. For every woman you post who has an ugly, highly successful husband, I can post an example of the opposite.
[/quote]

No, you cant.

You can post the weaksauce you posted which makes no sense whatsoever, because people have eyes you know?

Combined with human sexual dimorphism, studies that women always marry upwards when they can, even in Sweden, may the Mother Goddess be with them and of course that 60% of all men in history simply did not reproduce I have gutted your argument, set the remains on fire and right now I am pissing on the ashes.

- YouTube [/quote]
You haven’t gutted shit. You’ve simply distorted my argument to fit into a mold you are more familiar with. There is no link to testosterone and leadership qualities. Dominance is hardly a leadership quality. Do they go hand in hand sometimes? Sure.

I have gutted YOUR argument. See how that works? I can say shit that hasn’t happened as well. And I can sit here and make smug, snide comments that do nothing but inflate my own sense of self and ego just like you regularly resort to. I am pissing on you right now.

Now, back to the topic at hand. If testosterone is an inherent prerequisite for being a leader, how do you explain female-dominated societies in which, I assume, the HUMAN females do not have a higher level test than the men do? Why do societies like the Hibitoe Tribe in Papua New Guinea exist? Why is it that gender role reversal or a decrease in delineation between the two occur at all if testosterone is the primary factor in being a leader? If you are correct, then please explain to me why MATRIARCHIES have ever existed in human societies?

Surely, the Sardinians or most indigenous cultures in Asia and Africa that still operate within a largely agricultural society have existed and still do exist?

And let’s keep the animal kingdom out of this. Animals, mammals, birds, fish, whatever, they bear no comparison to human society. Human society has evolved immensely in most corners of the globe; animal societies have not. Again, another disingenuous argument that distracts from the main point on your part.[/quote]

If never claimed that testosterone is the end all and be all, I claimed that the testosterone laden sex dominates.

And it does.

Now you can pull out the few matriarchies that exist and existed, but the human norm are patriarchal polygamies with the caveat that most men cannot afford more than one wife.

How often will you pull this 3-5% stunt again?

Yeah, there are women and cultures that are outliers.

Whoop-de-fucking-dooo.

Most are not, there is a norm and it is what it is.

191

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
In Germany, this eventually led to the development of kindergartens (children gardens) where women were the teachers. But teaching was not seen as work but rather as a familial duty that women were best suited for. Of course, there was no legitimate basis for this assumption other than that women did NOT belong in the workforce, so by default they belonged at home.[/quote]

I would prefer that women fill the majority of jobs involving teaching and caring for children for the simple fact that 99% of pedophiles are male.

(I know this doesn’t directly address what you wrote, but your post triggered this thought.)
[/quote]

That is not necessarily true, women have way more undetectable ways to indulge in it than men do, as part of their professions.[/quote]

Explain please.[/quote]

Most kindergarden whatevers are female.

If they wash or cuddle a child noone thinks twice.

How would you know what goes through her head?

192

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The point is that women seek out men for all sorts of different reasons. For every woman you post who has an ugly, highly successful husband, I can post an example of the opposite.
[/quote]

No, you cant.

You can post the weaksauce you posted which makes no sense whatsoever, because people have eyes you know?

Combined with human sexual dimorphism, studies that women always marry upwards when they can, even in Sweden, may the Mother Goddess be with them and of course that 60% of all men in history simply did not reproduce I have gutted your argument, set the remains on fire and right now I am pissing on the ashes.

- YouTube [/quote]
You haven’t gutted shit. You’ve simply distorted my argument to fit into a mold you are more familiar with. There is no link to testosterone and leadership qualities. Dominance is hardly a leadership quality. Do they go hand in hand sometimes? Sure.

I have gutted YOUR argument. See how that works? I can say shit that hasn’t happened as well. And I can sit here and make smug, snide comments that do nothing but inflate my own sense of self and ego just like you regularly resort to. I am pissing on you right now.

Now, back to the topic at hand. If testosterone is an inherent prerequisite for being a leader, how do you explain female-dominated societies in which, I assume, the HUMAN females do not have a higher level test than the men do? Why do societies like the Hibitoe Tribe in Papua New Guinea exist? Why is it that gender role reversal or a decrease in delineation between the two occur at all if testosterone is the primary factor in being a leader? If you are correct, then please explain to me why MATRIARCHIES have ever existed in human societies?

Surely, the Sardinians or most indigenous cultures in Asia and Africa that still operate within a largely agricultural society have existed and still do exist?

And let’s keep the animal kingdom out of this. Animals, mammals, birds, fish, whatever, they bear no comparison to human society. Human society has evolved immensely in most corners of the globe; animal societies have not. Again, another disingenuous argument that distracts from the main point on your part.[/quote]

If never claimed that testosterone is the end all and be all, I claimed that the testosterone laden sex dominates.

And it does.

Now you can pull out the few matriarchies that exist and existed, but the human norm are patriarchal polygamies with the caveat that most men cannot afford more than one wife.

How often will you pull this 3-5% stunt again?

Yeah, there are women and cultures that are outliers.

Whoop-de-fucking-dooo.

Most are not, there is a norm and it is what it is. [/quote]

I understand that you claimed that testosterone-laden sex dominates. However, I never claimed anything to contrary. My argument is that leadership qualities are not exclusive to men, even if we ignore whatever statistical outliers there are regarding matriarchies.

Since we are talking about humans’ leadership qualities, animal kingdom domination is totally irrelevant to this discussion. You keep bringing it up because it is the only leg you have to stand on.

Last I checked, in the world of the job market, which I’m starting to suspect you have never been a part of, leadership is not defined solely by an ability to dominate. The best leaders know how to compromise, nurture, behave aggressively when necessary and passively or conciliatory when necessary.

The fact that you equate domination with leadership, apparently at the expense of all other qualities, is an OBVIOUS indication that you have never been in a position of leadership in your entire life. I’m a teacher. I’m currently only teaching two classes, unfortunately, but I still participate in weekly meetings with the other history and English teachers at my high school where we discuss the direction of the curriculum and that sort of thing. If I were to walk in and try and dominate the situation in an attempt at leading, I would be kicked out on my ass eventually.

The bottom line is that you are coming at this entire discussion from a position of ignorance borne mostly from your warped normative idea of what the world is like.

193

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The point is that women seek out men for all sorts of different reasons. For every woman you post who has an ugly, highly successful husband, I can post an example of the opposite.
[/quote]

No, you cant.

You can post the weaksauce you posted which makes no sense whatsoever, because people have eyes you know?

Combined with human sexual dimorphism, studies that women always marry upwards when they can, even in Sweden, may the Mother Goddess be with them and of course that 60% of all men in history simply did not reproduce I have gutted your argument, set the remains on fire and right now I am pissing on the ashes.

- YouTube [/quote]
You haven’t gutted shit. You’ve simply distorted my argument to fit into a mold you are more familiar with. There is no link to testosterone and leadership qualities. Dominance is hardly a leadership quality. Do they go hand in hand sometimes? Sure.

I have gutted YOUR argument. See how that works? I can say shit that hasn’t happened as well. And I can sit here and make smug, snide comments that do nothing but inflate my own sense of self and ego just like you regularly resort to. I am pissing on you right now.

Now, back to the topic at hand. If testosterone is an inherent prerequisite for being a leader, how do you explain female-dominated societies in which, I assume, the HUMAN females do not have a higher level test than the men do? Why do societies like the Hibitoe Tribe in Papua New Guinea exist? Why is it that gender role reversal or a decrease in delineation between the two occur at all if testosterone is the primary factor in being a leader? If you are correct, then please explain to me why MATRIARCHIES have ever existed in human societies?

Surely, the Sardinians or most indigenous cultures in Asia and Africa that still operate within a largely agricultural society have existed and still do exist?

And let’s keep the animal kingdom out of this. Animals, mammals, birds, fish, whatever, they bear no comparison to human society. Human society has evolved immensely in most corners of the globe; animal societies have not. Again, another disingenuous argument that distracts from the main point on your part.[/quote]
Why have the dominant societies through out history, granted with a handful of exceptions, been male dominated societies?

Nearly every major turning point in the history of the world was led by men, by and large. If women are equally capable, where is their contribution? They willingly took a back seat until about a hundred years ago?

A few random african tribes are the exception, not the rule.

194

Busy at work but ill give a quick response, more later.

Ugly women dominating academia has nothing to do with age. I’m comparing 27-30 educated women to non-educated women not old academics to young hotties.

Attractive women can attract quality guys so they’re less inclined to go further in school. Ugly women cant and have a greater need for financial independence. It doesn’t get more complicated than that.

On top of that, women who are decent looking don’t bother to put the time into their appearance so looks wise they end up being a downgrade.

The reason is very simple: women who are financially independent aren’t reliant on men. Women who aren’t reliant on men have less incentive to impress men.

Even if you go to bars/clubs I guarantee most men here would find hot girls aren’t generally that well educated. Of course im sure DB would argue all or most of the hot girls he knows are neurosurgeons I bet.

You can google the feminine vs competent thingy. Jizzabel has done some stuff on it. It makes sense though, femininity is submissive naturally while corporate success requires dominating masculine type attributes. They contradict each other.

I can’t remember what else, will respond to more later.

195

[quote]DropKickNoxious wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The point is that women seek out men for all sorts of different reasons. For every woman you post who has an ugly, highly successful husband, I can post an example of the opposite.
[/quote]

No, you cant.

You can post the weaksauce you posted which makes no sense whatsoever, because people have eyes you know?

Combined with human sexual dimorphism, studies that women always marry upwards when they can, even in Sweden, may the Mother Goddess be with them and of course that 60% of all men in history simply did not reproduce I have gutted your argument, set the remains on fire and right now I am pissing on the ashes.

- YouTube [/quote]
You haven’t gutted shit. You’ve simply distorted my argument to fit into a mold you are more familiar with. There is no link to testosterone and leadership qualities. Dominance is hardly a leadership quality. Do they go hand in hand sometimes? Sure.

I have gutted YOUR argument. See how that works? I can say shit that hasn’t happened as well. And I can sit here and make smug, snide comments that do nothing but inflate my own sense of self and ego just like you regularly resort to. I am pissing on you right now.

Now, back to the topic at hand. If testosterone is an inherent prerequisite for being a leader, how do you explain female-dominated societies in which, I assume, the HUMAN females do not have a higher level test than the men do? Why do societies like the Hibitoe Tribe in Papua New Guinea exist? Why is it that gender role reversal or a decrease in delineation between the two occur at all if testosterone is the primary factor in being a leader? If you are correct, then please explain to me why MATRIARCHIES have ever existed in human societies?

Surely, the Sardinians or most indigenous cultures in Asia and Africa that still operate within a largely agricultural society have existed and still do exist?

And let’s keep the animal kingdom out of this. Animals, mammals, birds, fish, whatever, they bear no comparison to human society. Human society has evolved immensely in most corners of the globe; animal societies have not. Again, another disingenuous argument that distracts from the main point on your part.[/quote]
Why have the dominant societies through out history, granted with a handful of exceptions, been male dominated societies?

Nearly every major turning point in the history of the world was led by men, by and large. If women are equally capable, where is their contribution? They willingly took a back seat until about a hundred years ago?

A few random african tribes are the exception, not the rule. [/quote]

Women have the inherent disadvantage of being physically inferior to men. That doesn’t mean that they’re inferior leaders. If I walk into a room and beat the fuck out of the “leader” in that room, I am not a leader. I am simply the one who is physically more capable.

Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.

It is a misnomer to suggest that women willingly took a backseat. They weren’t given the same opportunities as men. Women have largely been kept out of the educational system until the last 100 years or so. It’s hard to change the world without an education.

It’s entirely oversimplistic to say that since men have been the progenitors of most changes in this world they are natural leaders and women are not. War is a huge determining factor in most major changes throughout history and war is fought by men for obvious reasons. Women were also excluded from the political process after the fall of European monarchies. How can women enact the same changes that men enact if they are not even allowed into the arenas in which change occurs?

196

And yeah, dominance is a leadership quality. Without it, the rest falls apart. Today women in power are able to leverage the dominance of law.

This doesn’t make them better leaders any more than reducing military/police academy physical standards so that women can pass will make them better soldiers and or cops.

Why, in today’s world of equality, are the majority of high level leadership positions held by men? Women are roughly half of the developed world’s population.

If the are so capable, why aren’t more of them being elected to board positions? Taking the CEO/CFO/COO office, the VP offices, even Director offices?

Shareholders of corporations will vote to protect and grow their money. There is no bias for penises or vaginas when greenbacks are on the line.

If women are so competent, so eager and so willing to lead, where are they?

Prove, without a doubt, the “glass ceiling” is real today, in this decade, and the previous.

The argument can be made that the average CEO is mid fifties, not giving women enough time to achieve the rank yet, but this isn’t so for VP and especially director roles.

The larger statistic of human history is that men have been the leaders, with few exceptions, where it counts. Small studies designed to find a specific outcome to begin with can not compare.

197

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Women have the inherent disadvantage of being physically inferior to men. That doesn’t mean that they’re inferior leaders. If I walk into a room and beat the fuck out of the “leader” in that room, I am not a leader. I am simply the one who is physically more capable.

Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.

It is a misnomer to suggest that women willingly took a backseat. They weren’t given the same opportunities as men. Women have largely been kept out of the educational system until the last 100 years or so. It’s hard to change the world without an education.

It’s entirely oversimplistic to say that since men have been the progenitors of most changes in this world they are natural leaders and women are not. War is a huge determining factor in most major changes throughout history and war is fought by men for obvious reasons. Women were also excluded from the political process after the fall of European monarchies. How can women enact the same changes that men enact if they are not even allowed into the arenas in which change occurs? [/quote]

I kind of think you’re underestimating the power women always have had behind the scenes though. While men have been the ones in the public eye, women have played a pretty solid role throughout history with respect to networking and positioning their “men”.

You don’t have to be visible to the public to actually wield power. It’s the combination of overt and covert power that women have today that worries me just a bit, since men really really suck at the covert power stuff.

198

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Busy at work but ill give a quick response, more later.

Ugly women dominating academia has nothing to do with age. I’m comparing 27-30 educated women to non-educated women not old academics to young hotties.

Attractive women can attract quality guys so they’re less inclined to go further in school. Ugly women cant and have a greater need for financial independence. It doesn’t get more complicated than that.

On top of that, women who are decent looking don’t bother to put the time into their appearance so looks wise they end up being a downgrade.

The reason is very simple: women who are financially independent aren’t reliant on men. Women who aren’t reliant on men have less incentive to impress men.

Even if you go to bars/clubs I guarantee most men here would find hot girls aren’t generally that well educated. Of course im sure DB would argue all or most of the hot girls he knows are neurosurgeons I bet.

You can google the feminine vs competent thingy. Jizzabel has done some stuff on it. It makes sense though, femininity is submissive naturally while corporate success requires dominating masculine type attributes. They contradict each other.

I can’t remember what else, will respond to more later.[/quote]

This entire post is wrought with ignorance. Yeah, you know what? Most of the attractive women I know are pretty damn smart. Maybe you should ask yourself why the ones you know are dumbfucks. Maybe the issue is with you.

The fact is that you can NEVER prove that smarter, more educated women are also less attractive as a rule. It doesn’t break down that simply. Femininity is submissive by nature? According to whose definition of femininity? Yours? Not mine, and certainly not most of the women I know. Do you even know any beautiful women, Raj? Probably not.

You see, this is what I’m getting at. Femininity is a social construct with roots in the beginning of the Industrial Era. Prior to that, the idea of femininity was entirely different. Household chores, raising children, fixing clothing, teaching kindergarten and all that sort of stuff were not solely feminine ideals prior to the Industrial Revolution, as I have explained thoroughly.

Again, you’ve started out on a false premise and arrived at your conclusion accordingly. Attractive women don’t go farther in school than their ugly counterparts? Can you give me any evidence to suggest that is true? No, of course not. You can provide some bullshit hypothesis about marriage rates vs education or whatever, but it means nothing. Physical attractiveness is NOT the sole deciding factor when couples get married. If that were the case, every guy out there would marry the hottest chick he ever banged and every woman would marry the hottest guy who ever fucked her. But that isn’t how things work out.

199

[quote]DropKickNoxious wrote:
And yeah, dominance is a leadership quality. Without it, the rest falls apart. Today women in power are able to leverage the dominance of law.

This doesn’t make them better leaders any more than reducing military/police academy physical standards so that women can pass will make them better soldiers and or cops.

Why, in today’s world of equality, are the majority of high level leadership positions held by men? Women are roughly half of the developed world’s population.

If the are so capable, why aren’t more of them being elected to board positions? Taking the CEO/CFO/COO office, the VP offices, even Director offices?

Shareholders of corporations will vote to protect and grow their money. There is no bias for penises or vaginas when greenbacks are on the line.

If women are so competent, so eager and so willing to lead, where are they?

Prove, without a doubt, the “glass ceiling” is real today, in this decade, and the previous.

The argument can be made that the average CEO is mid fifties, not giving women enough time to achieve the rank yet, but this isn’t so for VP and especially director roles.

The larger statistic of human history is that men have been the leaders, with few exceptions, where it counts. Small studies designed to find a specific outcome to begin with can not compare. [/quote]

Again, you’re basing all of this on false premises. Women are making groundbreaking inroads into the corporate world. Where are the women leaders? They’re out there getting an education and preparing themselves for their future leadership positions. I also would argue that the inherent social expectation placed on women, which has been in place for generations now, undermines some womens’ idea of independence. The fact is that if you tell women they belong in the household for 250-300 years straight, they aren’t going to reverse that mindset across an entire gender in the course of one or two generations.

Also, when corporations are dominated by men, many who still cling to the archaic idea that women are not suited for leadership by virtue of being a woman, it makes it even harder for women to rise up that corporate ladder.

Women have had the deck stacked against them for a long time. Just because they haven’t figured out how to succeed in a rigged game does not mean in any way at all that they are inferior. They just have a harder road to get to the same positions that men traditionally have occupied. Twenty years from now I have no doubt that the corporate and political landscape will reflect this growing amount of women seeking out high-powered positions.

200

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Women have the inherent disadvantage of being physically inferior to men. That doesn’t mean that they’re inferior leaders. If I walk into a room and beat the fuck out of the “leader” in that room, I am not a leader. I am simply the one who is physically more capable.

Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.

It is a misnomer to suggest that women willingly took a backseat. They weren’t given the same opportunities as men. Women have largely been kept out of the educational system until the last 100 years or so. It’s hard to change the world without an education.

It’s entirely oversimplistic to say that since men have been the progenitors of most changes in this world they are natural leaders and women are not. War is a huge determining factor in most major changes throughout history and war is fought by men for obvious reasons. Women were also excluded from the political process after the fall of European monarchies. How can women enact the same changes that men enact if they are not even allowed into the arenas in which change occurs? [/quote]

I kind of think you’re underestimating the power women always have had behind the scenes though. While men have been the ones in the public eye, women have played a pretty solid role throughout history with respect to networking and positioning their “men”.

You don’t have to be visible to the public to actually wield power. It’s the combination of overt and covert power that women have today that worries me just a bit, since men really really suck at the covert power stuff.[/quote]

Men suck at the covert power thing? Yeah, try running that past any high-ranking officer in the CIA, FBI or the old KGB.