Can Women Lead Men?

[september]

Merc, much of your argument is inductive: I've had experiences x and y, and so I conclude z (women should not lead men/Belle is mischaracterizing the family structure).

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

This is why men are losing leadership roles and their sense of masculinity all together. Because they see women and family as being all important and as the guide for how they should act.

...

You describe a matriarchy: no competing, everyone is equal and valued. It's interesting how you put this... "the role we've assigned them". You are unconsciously putting men a little bit lower than yourself.

No offense, but you have no idea what it means to be a man any more than I have some idea what it is to be a woman.

Belle is not describing a matriarchy. She offers cooperative terms to describe a society where men and women bring their strengths to the table to meet a common goal (raising great children), but I don't see how that necessitates that the whole of society be structured in the same way. If Belle wants to work a job where there is less competition and more cooperation, perhaps she is expressing a preference for cooperation. But she is not insisting that everyone's jobs be based on cooperation. Hell, my prospective field thrives on competition, and that's a perk for me -- that motivates me to keep pushing myself for better results, more coherent life structure, etc. I want to be among the best.

Rather, when Belle says that women are the core of society, I take it that she is saying that the family structure is the core of society, and women are the core of the family because raising a child naturally seems to produce the best results by using cooperative methods. Children are often most emotionally broken when they're pushed to compete in venues in which they don't want to compete, by domineering parents of both sexes. However, a cooperative child-raising atmosphere can show the child the best elements in both their parents and encourage them to engage in critical, independent judgment of the elements they are exposed to in order to develop themselves better. That is, the child can learn in which venues they want to compete and in which venues they want to cooperate.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

As for leadership in general, I completely disagree with you. Many of the women I have worked for played favorites, were emotionally manipulative and over-controlling (Hitler on crack). The men I've worked for may be insensitive, but I know where I stand at all times. I know if there is a problem, he will deal with it fairly and efficiently. He won't judge by appearances, but rather by substance.

I worked in sales for a while and people could be categorized into two groups: thinkers and feelers. The thinker wants to know all the details about something and cares little for what it looks like. The feeler on the other hand will go off of how they subjectively experience something and they do care about what it looks like. Most of the time, the man was the thinker and the woman was the feeler.

This is the problem I have with inductive arguments -- Say there are one million marbles in a jar. Half are orange and half are purple. Say even 2/3rds of them are orange, and 1/3rd are purple. You pick out 100. The vast majority of them are orange. But there are SO many marbles in the jar (people and experiences in the world) that your marble-picking experience does not invalidate the presence of many purple marbles in the jar.

You're making arguments based on your past experiences. But that just shows a propensity for self-reflection. To understand other people's points and win them over to your side, past experience isn't going to cut it. Everyone has a past experience, and theirs can easily match yours in cohering with their argument just as well as your past coheres with yours. You need arguments not dependent upon your personal experience to better convince me. Not all inductive arguments are bad. But they should cull from a wider sample, and provide many more trait-matching results than yours.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Every corporation is designed off the military model and, currently, corporations rule most of the world. That's because it is a much more effective way of managing people and resources. (Like it or not and, personally, I don't like it).

This doesn't provide that the military model is masculine! As Mary Wollstonecraft perceptively points out in A Vindication Of The Rights Of Woman, the military beats down the common soldier to be dependent, submissive, and obedient. There are, as a result, many more submissive men in the military than there are dominant men. You'd probably say the men are just assuming the feminine position. In parallel, societal conceptions of masculinity and femininity in the 1700s provided that the husband keep the wife submissive to the husband, and the woman submissive to the man. And submission in this case is also "feminine". But it comes at the same level of "naturalness" in both the military man and the woman -- resistance, shame, brokenness. Then falling in line. But in the man it is "discipline", while in the woman it is "feminine submission".

My point is: men and women can both be broken, inside the military and out. That doesn't make the military a masculine institution; rather, it makes the military one more institution that plays on conceptions of domination and submission, requiring what you would call "masculine" and "feminine" elements. But seeing that both sexes break, one no more naturally than the other, I think, should make anyone sit and think for a while about how submission could be fun or fulfilling for anyone without societal conditioning.

[Marco Polo]

How odd. Why do you see it in terms of breaking? There is nothing wrong with submission to excellent leadership.

Just last night I had an entralling conversation with my uncle, a strong willed and genuinely intelligent man. He had more to teach me about life than vice versa. So I took the position of eager student - a submissive position if you will. That doesn't mean I "break", it just means I respect him instead of trying to outsmart him. My uncle's wife is of the kind that feminists typically despise (if only secretly) because she spurs on certain stereotypes. She's a dutiful housewife who every day cooks two scrumptous meals for her 5 children + husband (and now me!), and she takes care of most traditional household tasks. She is quite "sumbissive" to my uncle, but at the same time something else struck me about her - she's much stronger than most women I've made aquaintance with. An happier too. She's so direct, she dishes out tough love just like you say, and I would certainly call her disciplined. Some folks would look at her and think "female opression" but this couldn't be further from the truth. Yet some people would sneer at her for what she does.

As for the military, that's an institution specifically engineered to kick ass. Put whatever labels you want on it, it is what it is. Running around in the forest with camouflage and shooting up the enemy... now that's what I'm talking about! (of course the soliders may get used for the wrong reasons, but that's a different monster).

I don't think it's a coincidence that young boys are typically so much more fascinated by the concept of it than young girls. If the military had been a 100% female institution at conception, it would take on a vastly different character (then again some people believe there would be no war infastructure if women were in charge of everything).

If you're a purple marble that's all good, as long as you don't deny the majority their right to retain their natural color - orange! We can't construct society entirely around the purple freaks -> ... although they seem so miserable that we should probably try to cheer them up a little. We can have a purple pride fest.

[WageMage]

Sorry to take off on a tangent here, but... mentions of misdirected males and the correlation between their existence and single-parent (male or female) households makes me think more along the lines of the... ultimate inviability of the single (or even double) parent family unit. The last few of centuries have misled us to believe that two parents raise a child. The last two in particular even tried to make do with one parent.

I call bullocks.

It takes a village to raise a child (please ignore Clinton's book with the same title, focus if anywhere, on the african saying). Cities have taken the village away from us, removing us from the fabric of a community that nourishes and guides us. "Neighborhoods" can try and make up for it, but... few neighborhoods have the vitality and ... interconnectedness (if that's even a word) of a true village.

So where we see people growing up without role models or a structure, without a sense of belonging or social responsibility ... you can blame the parents that (together or alone) try (often heroically, sometimes less so) to be an entire community to their children... in truth, it is not they who fail, but rather the social fabric, or lack thereof.

Males... simply have a more noticeable, more obvious "failure mode" - easier and more recognizable stereotypes to fail into, when faced with a lack of not only "role models" but a "societal model" - a working example of a community.

Many people will cry foul, say they have been brought up by a single parent and no community, yet turned out allright... I won't say they're wrong, perhaps the parent was one of those true heros, perhaps one's innate characteristics would dictate "success" given only minimal conditions... but I DO defend that there is a strong correlation between a healthy integration into a community (and not just one's family) and one's assumption of a constructive role in society - be it a male or a female role.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by ivorytickler

Female chemical engineer here, speak for yourself. 50% of my graduating class was women and that was more years ago than I'll admit to . That's just chem e's though. There are more men in the other engineering disciplines.

However, women do dominate in one sense. Because we are going into male fields, the tendency is that only the top women go into those fields. You're reaching farther down the IQ curve with men. So, on average, the women who do go into the sciences and engineering are better than the men.

I had a prof who gave an exam at the beginning of every year to just see who was better and he swore in 20 years he'd never had the men win.

I graduated at the top of my chemical engineering class. Barely beating out the woman who took the number two slot. The two of us were comparable to each other but head and shoulders above the next guy.

First of all, just because you got better grades doesn't mean you're better. Much of what you learn in school you will never use in a real job. Also, higher IQ? Quite presumptuous of you as well. From what I've seen, men party more in college than most women. When they get out into the job market though, watch out. That's when they get serious. It's great that you think you're better than men, but I think you're reasoning is missing many components. Social skills and problem solving become the most important components in the workplace.

[Marco Polo]

People today wouldn't know real chauvinism if it slapped them in the face. Thus, when someone deviates from the politically correct norm [i.e. paying lip service to the vision of an androgynous utopia], they act all offended.

This is real chauvinism, just to give a case example.

[Angela]

Marco, it sounds like you're saying that as a man, you can move freely back and forth between submission to excellent leadership (as in to your uncle) and being excellent leadership yourself. And that women, as a group, are inherently not as excellent at leadership as men are, as a group, so if the are wise, they will gladly submit themselves to the excellent leadership available to them from men, for their own good.

Am I understanding you?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

This is real chauvinism, just to give a case example.

You know, I'm not sure why you'd link that here and put a big ole smiley next to it. I don't really find it funny and I am also well aware of the egregious sexism that still exists in the world. I've encountered people like this guy in real life on a regular basis.

[Marco Polo]

@Angela: actually that doesn't follow logically from what I said, but I see what you're asking.

No, as a conscious being you choose to follow whichever path you please. Same for everybody.

What we're loosely calling the submissive trait does appear more frequent in women though, yes.

I must admit I dislike the word "submissive" - this may well be a suboptimal word for the phenomenon we're describing. It hardly ever entails that you blindly follow somone (in terms of relationships, I mean).

I get all this from the long and tedious scientific process I like to call "keeping my eyes open". It would, however, be arrogant of me to suggest the extent to which these traits are biologically inherent, as I do not know the answer to that (although I believe a fairly strong case could be made that testosterone and estrogen affect us immensely). I've met so many exceptions to the stereotypes though, so this is hardly sufficient in and of itself.

Are men better leaders in general? No, that's a sweeping generalization I would reject flat out. When they reach they reach their absolute max potential though, the most talented of men are usually the ones to take the lead in most realms. There, that's my honest opinion.

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

You know, I'm not sure why you'd link that here and put a big ole smiley next to it. I don't really find it funny and I am also well aware of the egregious sexism that still exists in the world. I've encountered people like this guy in real life on a regular basis.

I feel sorry for you.

Have you met female chauvinists as well? I have, at my university. Not very pleasant, let me tell you. Their sexism is not so blunt as this guy, more subtle and under the surface. But just as bad in my opinion.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

I feel sorry for you.

Have you met female chauvinists as well? I have, at my university. Not very pleasant, let me tell you. Their sexism is not so blunt as this guy, more subtle and under the surface. But just as bad in my opinion.

Don't feel sorry for me, I'm doing just fine .

I have met female chauvinists. I'm sorry if I misunderstand the term, but do you mean women who are sexist against women? Or do you mean female chauvinists in the sense that they are sexist against men? In either case, of course I've met them. Sadly some women mirror the oppressive language men use to degrade women in order to get in with the "boys club" and seem cool. Also sad is the fact that many women have reacted to long-standing oppression with reverse oppression/degradation against men. I certainly don't think that's the answer. Aside from my strong inclination to support free speech, I see nothing of merit in that site or any it's equal, but opposite.

[Angela]

Well, your purple marble analogy, and your not understanding why being required to submit feels like "breaking" when in fact it's to the submitters advantage to submit (or follow, or be led, whatever you want to call it) led me to think that you are saying that men are natural and better leaders (orange) and women are more natural and better followers (purple).

Perpetuating that line of thought can feel very oppressive, as it has done to various minorities throughout the ages -- it keeps society holding onto limits that are based on gender. That's one reason it feels like "breaking" -- we're breaking traditional oppression by one group, who informs the other that they are being oppressed or limited for their own good. It's also a reason why the feminists whom you not-so-secretly despise become angry. Women have been punished pretty severely for not "respecting" men, as you put it -- for not acknowledging men as their leaders and implicitly their superiors. Same reason African Americans become angry at hearing a Caucasion announce that they are not as capable or intelligent as their white peers, and why can't they just accept that? Same reason gay people bristle when straights declare that AIDS is punishment for homosexuality. Maybe the same reason Aspiring 's buttons get pushed by that hideous website. We don't want to slide back down the slippery slope of oppression.

There has been a lot of collective and individual pain and effort put into overcoming bigotry and oppression, and it can hurt to see tendrils of it come crawling back under the house. I don't think you are bigoted, but making statements that women are this and men are that can come across that way, I think you can see that. If it seems like anyone is overly sensitive in perceiving potential bigotry and oppression, it's that after fumigating the whole house, it can be pretty upsetting to see one cockroach in the kitchen sink.

[Marco Polo]

@aspiring_to_clarity: Or men against men. Like Michael Moore...

Yep, goes all ways. And yet the word chauvinism seems almost synonymous to "male sexism" nowadays. I've heard it defined that way so many times.

This stems from the same twisted sort of thinking which holds that minority groups cannot be racist against the majority.

@Angela: I don't agree with the statement "men are orange and women are purple". In fact, according to September, 1/3 of men are purple. It's her analogy, read her previous post.

What is orange mixed with purple? Maybe that's the color we should all strive to make in some shade or other. (I just realized that's probably brown, maybe not so pretty...)

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

@aspiring_to_clarity: Or men against men. Like Michael Moore...

Yep, goes all ways. And yet the word chauvinism seems almost synonymous to "male sexism" nowadays. I've heard it defined that way so many times.

This stems from the same twisted sort of thinking which holds that minority groups cannot be racist against the majority.

Well, I don't know the origins of the word chauvinism so perhaps the focus on male sexism is the original intent of the word. However, I agree that anyone can be sexist, or racist or biggoted in any way. The words misogynist and misandrist are gender specific and work well as descriptors.

HOWEVER, I will also say that as a white person, I don't feel too much oppression by a black person calling me a honky. I don't feel denied anything or that I am loosing out because of Affirmative Action. There is a level of privilege in the, well, privileged classes that insulates them from the ramifications of such speech. And I don't mean that it's right or that it may not sting. I only mean that there is not the same history of denial of rights, oppression, marginalization and etc when a black person is racist against a white person or when a woman is sexist toward a man. Can you see how they are different? Again, not right, just not as powerfully hurtful...not as accepted, condoned and enforced by society. I think that I'm speaking clumsily, but hopefully you get the jist?

[Marco Polo]

Hurtfulness is emotionally subjective, I personally believe young boys are hurt by many of the dominant modes of thinking today in society... including the notion that they're the future rapists and oppressors etc etc (also schools are biased to benefit girls, we have a whole different beast there).

That said I know exactly what you mean here. You see male sexism today as the remnant of something much worse, right? I can certainly see that point.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

Hurtfulness is emotionally subjective, I personally believe young boys are hurt by many of the dominant modes of thinking today in society... including the notion that they're the future rapists and oppressors etc etc.

I fully agree. And yes, it's not fair for me to say that all white people would feel the same as I do either. Mainly I think that the collective pain body around long-term oppression of certain races and women is very large and not (yet and hopefully never) matched by the reverse. I don't see the benefit in raising boys to believe they are sexist oppressors...it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've always wanted children, and far from telling my boys something like that, I hope to instill respect for everyone in them. My goal is not to overthrow and take the place of male oppressors, only to balance the tables and have us all work in harmonious cooperation. I don't side with women who promote misandry any more than I enjoy that website you posted.

I do think that we need to counteract a lot of ideas surrounding rape, but that is a wholly different subject and a huge derailment.

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

That said I know exactly what you mean here. You see male sexism today as the remnant of something much worse, right? I can see that point.

Actually, male sexism today is not a remnant, it's a continuation. But, generally I think you see what I mean. My history as a white person in the US nowhere includes being taken from my home, shipped across the world, sold as property, beaten, raped, forced into slave labor and demoralized over years and years. Similarly, a man does not have the collective history of marginalizaiton that women face. I think it's the kind of thing that is very hard to understand from the other side. And in saying that I don't deny or downgrade the difficult experiences of men over the years. I cannot understand that fully either, and this point in time is probably more difficult for men than ever before. However, websites like the one you link to still exist. Sexism still permeates the attacks on a presidential candidate. I think there is actually a surge in sexism against women, perhaps arising out of the fears or difficulties men have faced in light of changing times. It's hard for all of us to know where we stand and how to hold our place in society while still yielding to each other. There's still much work to be done.

And I will continue to condemn misandry along with misogyny. Both are harmful, though one has a much longer history with more collective pain behind it (in my opinion).

[Playlife]

Well, I(a guy) kinda hope that I will be oppressed and shamed and everything - then my pain will be just as big as women's and finally I can be a good fairy too.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I also wanted to post on the original topic. I do believe women can lead men, raise strong and capable men and do most anything else that it's physically possible for them to do.

In the case of single mothers, I wonder why the blame is placed on the woman for not doing a good job raising the boy into a man? Should we not consider that his father leaving had a profound effect on the boy and that that action brought him a skewed picture of what a man should be? Should we not consider the number of single mothers who live in poverty or have to keep several jobs just to put food on the table for their sons (and daughters) when fathers do not help support their children? Do not the female children of single mothers face similar problems? It seems that a man's success cannot ever be attributed to a woman, but that his every failure must be. The reasons those men are on the streets doing drugs and not fulfilling their potential is much more complicated than the fact (?) that they were raised by single mothers. I know men who grew up with fathers -- some excellent and some quite poor -- who have turned out the same way.

I agree with someone upthread that having a good male role model is very important -- for both boys and girls. However I fail to see how the lack of one once again becomes the fault of the woman/mother.

I think that in many cases women are quite capable of leading men, but that men reject women's leadership whether out of fear or simply out of familiarity with the status quo.

I have more thoughts swirling around about the topic, but they are not organized and so I'll leave it at that for now.

[Marco Polo]

The way I see it, it's almost like society is implicitly telling us men "you had your turn, step aside now". Well I refuse to step aside.

I wouldn't say there's a surge of sexism amongst men... it's more a reactionary stance to what many see as an attack on men and advances of certain strands of feminism (and I agree, at least partially). Men have been outside the gender debate for a while now, so excuse us if our entry comes off the wrong way. But as long as there's imbalance in the world we'll have the same problem. If men stay quiet about what they think, that's hardly going to solve anything.

And I think you'll find that very few men hate or look down upon women. Quite the contrary actually.

[Playlife]

Aspiring, maybe the original post wasn't so much about women's "failure" to raise children, than about the absence of men in raising them?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

The way I see it, it's almost like society is implicitly telling us men "you had your turn, step aside now". Well I refuse to step aside.

I understand that feeling well actually. As a woman I still feel it from society. And I in no way agree that men should step aside at all as I think is clear from my posts. We all have a great deal to offer in community with each other and we won't be able to tap into the strength of that if we are fighting and demeaning each other all the time.

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

I wouldn't say there's a surge of sexism amongst men... it's more a reactionary stance to what many see as an attack on men and advances of certain strands of feminism (and I agree, at least partially). Men have been outside the gender debate for a while now, so excuse us if our entry comes off the wrong way. But as long as there's imbalance in the world we'll have the same problem. If men stay quiet about what they think, that's hardly going to solve anything.

It's understandable that the reaction has happened this way, especially to those particular movements that have sought to turn the tables on men rather than come to a place of equality and cooperation. Again, men don't need to stay quiet at all. I welcome you to the debate. I only wish both sides would put away the ammunition and work together for a common goal. As I said, we don't get anywhere by fighting.

Originally Posted by Marco Polo