Can Women Lead Men?

[bellemeadows]

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me this is an issue of emotional maturity.

Even on these posts about women and leadership, there is so much he said, she said. Many people in our culture don't teach their children emotional maturity; many grown ups in our culture do not demonstrate emotional maturity themselves. Yet emotional maturity is critical in leadership. It is also, much more so than intelligence, a high predictor of success in life.

Even on this board, many are more invested in defending their existing beliefs than in discussing what is possible. It really requires an open mind and a good level of emotional maturity to hear what others are saying, and allow them their voice, without putting them down.

Just my thoughts. Belle,

[Marco Polo]

I agree emotional maturity is important. Whether it's more important than intelligence, I can't really say (but I suppose they're interconnected).

Unfortunately both seem to be lacking in the mainstream debate on gender issues. Actually it's not so much a debate as a monologue, with women spanking men for being such terrible oppressors the last 200 000 years. but lets call it a debate.

It's also happens to be the Western man (possibly the most feminized on earth) who takes the brunt of this. That's beyond our scope, however, and I don't wish to make this a general lamentation or make men look like the victims. We're not victims at all, unless we choose to be so.

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

I still wonder why leadership is considered a masculine trait; it clearly is gender-free. However, if you insist on believing it is NOT gender free, that is certainly your prerogative.

It's more about intellectual honesty than just believing something for the sake of it. I perceive important gender differences, and if I denied that perception I would be lying to you. I'm not addicted to my opinion per se, I'm just tired of society not pointing out the elephant in the room.

I don't value harmony over truth. If my views aren't popular, then so be it. (I do realize nobody will come and pat me on the head for saying these things).

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

I prefer to look for the evidence, and draw my own conclusions. If you want to ever wish to see a rainbow I recommend you do not read about it, or look at paintings by famous people of rainbows; go out and look for yourself.

Well, yeah. And after looking carefully at the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that men and women are rather different. The rainbow was pretty clear to me.

Some of these differences only show up in statistical averages (results which, alas, could have been derived from simple common sense), and others are more gender specific - neurological, hormonal or societal variations (sex hormones being a good starting point). Society may exaggerate these differences to a great extent, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Watch the documentary in my previous post.

As for leadership in general, that's a very individual trait, I think. It's not all about gender, or even mostly. But when women take the position of leadership en masse - in any given realm - the leadership will most likely be different. A society where mostly women are in power is very different in character. I think we should acknowledge and hone the potential of each gender (and our differences) instead of denying it. I don't believe that masculinity must necessarily suffer at the hands of femininity or vice versa. We're ying and yang. We just haven't found our point of balance yet.

I'm open for disagreement.

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

But when women take the position of leadership en masse - in any given realm - the leadership will most likely be different. A society where mostly women are in power is very different in character.

And what would happen then? Would it be bad?

[Marco Polo]

Are apples superior to grapes? No.

But they taste different. A society which takes on an overarching feminine character - in part defined by its leadership, intellectual or otherwise - will produce both good and bad results. Values like sensitivity, cooperation and harmony will be uplifted, whereas boldness, truth and competition will taken down a peg. I think we can all figure out the general implications of that.

Individual variations can't be taken out of the equation, I might add (maybe I should put this as a disclaimer beside every post).

[Sam988]

Women are just brainless pieces of meat, how do you expect them to lead anything other than the needle to make clothes for their babies?




(jk jk about the above). I think that women can lead, there's no reason why they couldn't. Maybe the only disadvantage that women have is the very fact that many men believe women can't lead (having a bigger tendency to become insubordinate to women), so it becomes kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

It's not all about gender, or even mostly. But when women take the position of leadership en masse - in any given realm - the leadership will most likely be different.

You say it's not about gender, then you say it'll be mostly likely different with women... so, that's gender. Women, en masse, using the current styles of leadership, may never change anything. Did you mean they (women) would change leadership styles... maybe into dropping 'leadership' all-together?

Our current leadership styles tend to focus on logic, control, and heirarchys. That's what we know as a race, and that's what we do. There's too much unknown outside those boundaries. Dropping logic, control, and hierarchies would take an enlightened person or person with more presence and consciousness than the current elected officials. With that said, gender doesn't matter, consciousness does.

[clair08]

Basically, (i know I'm going to be hated for this) I think women should return to more traditional roles in the home and let men lead. I think women should stop trying to out due men, stop trying to assert themselves over men. Women need to be submissive to their husbands. They need to let the man protect and provide for them. And I'm not saying it's wrong for a woman to have a job or be a ceo but women need to put down their briefcases and put their marriages and their family first. Women just need to act like women, step back and let the man lead.

[clair08]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

Are apples superior to grapes? No.

But they taste different. A society which takes on an overarching feminine character - in part defined by its leadership, intellectual or otherwise - will produce both good and bad results. Values like sensitivity, cooperation and harmony will be uplifted, whereas boldness, truth and competition will taken down a peg. I think we can all figure out the general implications of that.

Individual variations can't be taken out of the equation, I might add (maybe I should put this as a disclaimer beside every post).

I concur. People are always trying to say that women and men are the same when we're not. We're different in every aspect, we have different roles in society and the home. I don't see anything wrong with that and it doesn't mean that one gender is better than another.

[Marco Polo]

nah, I disagree with the notion that women need to return to traditional roles. When our whole societal structure hinges on the concept of economic rationality, it's unfair to demand such a thing as dropping your briefcase. It should be a choice.

the least we can do, however, is stop sneering at those women (and also men) who choose that particular path in life. and provide better economic safety nets.

we can't have declining birth rates in the western world forever, and remain a strong civilization at the same time.

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by clair08

Basically, (i know I'm going to be hated for this) I think women should return to more traditional roles in the home and let men lead. I think women should stop trying to out due men, stop trying to assert themselves over men. Women need to be submissive to their husbands. They need to let the man protect and provide for them. And I'm not saying it's wrong for a woman to have a job or be a ceo but women need to put down their briefcases and put their marriages and their family first. Women just need to act like women, step back and let the man lead.

I have nothing wrong with women in a traditional role, if they choose it. What I do have a problem with is that role being dictated to them as their only role.

And what makes you think that being a leader isn't womanly?

It is a misnomer that women need to assert themselves over men. Perhaps there was a time when this was so, I don't know. A talented woman these days has no such need, as opportunities are everywhere for anyone with talent, male or female.

Frankly, I think both genders need to support family more and each other, but I don't see that having anything whatsoever to do with leadership. What you are proposing, is the party line. To me, there are times when both men and women need to be in service to each other, and the children, and the elders and the community. Leadership is a responsibility. Along with responsibility should come the sense of service to those who are relying on that person who is leading, who is responsible and accountable.

Being in service is not the same as being submissive. Being submissive implies someone else needs to be in charge, not because they are a better leader, or even know how to lead, but because that is how it needs to be. In contrast, being in service allows for leadership to pass back and forth the person who is the best leader for the specific situation, and the person who is not. Because whether you are leading or following, you are in service.

Being submissive, in my mind, is a bit dangerous. It is giving up one's self to a higher authority, rather than engaging and addressing the hard questions as a team. So what would you suggest to a wife who learns her husband, her spouse, her higher authority is abusing her son? Would she submit, because he is the man, the head of the household? Or would she speak out for what is best for the family? If you advocate for speaking out, I'm not sure you really believe the submissive stuff. . . . which is the point. Submissive behavior can lead to abuses. One in five children in the US, both male and female, are sexually abused before they reach their majority. Many by their own caretakers. Children are submissive because they are at the mercy of their caretakers.

Did you know, the best patients are those who advocate for themselves, and are not submissive to their doctor, but are actively engaged in finding healing solutions? They live longer, statistically, and their illnesses have better outcomes. To me, it is the same within the family. The strongest families are those where each spouse advocates for the welfare of the family, and are engaged in finding the best solutions, not the solutions dictated by one person, and blindly accepted by another. This is a situational leadership model. It is more effective, in my opinion it is more respectul.

It is definately easier to be submissive, if you want someone else to make all of the decisions for you. But it doesn't work for many people. To some people, submission is the death of their spirit, while being in service is life to their spirit.

I also think it is wrong to look up to men as if they are a higher power. They are not. They are different from women, and they have their strengths, their gifts to bring to the family and to the world. But they are not God, and we should never put them in that place.

Belle,

[Apple Eye]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

When parents have a baby, the mother will hold the child close to keep him/her safe. The father will throw the baby up in the air to make him/her laugh. Mothers will nurture a child and fathers teach them to fend for themselves. When there is no father, children get lots of nurturing and no fending for themselves. As a result, we have men that are quite needy and play lots of video games and we have women who are quite frustrated and have Phd's.

How about your experiences? Have you met a needy guys in your lifetime? How about in comparison to strong, responsible women?

Your view of the interactions between parent and child are rather simplistic and exaggerated. Of course women hold their babies, but men hold them as well - they don't just toss them in the air.

It's also a misconception that women are nurturing and coddling their children all the time. Some of the best mothers I have seen are strict disciplinarians who are extremely effective at drawing the line between nurturing, affection, encouragement, and teaching the children to become independent and confident.

Interestingly, if I take your analogy and apply it to leadership (or anything really) it seems the best way to raise a child/run an organization/lead a country is to combine both aspects of parenting that you pointed out. In other words, you need both. I'm not sure I agree that one is inherently feminine and the other masculine, as what is considered feminine and masculine can change depending on the culture, but my main point is that one doesn't work without the other. I think it's pretty clear that the shape of the world today is enough proof that a dominant form of leadership that thrives on the oppression of the masses to support the minority elite isn't the best way to approach things.

And I'm not clear on why women having PhD's is a bad thing?

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Domination/submission evolved out of our biology. There is no conspiracy on a man's part about that, despite what feminists purport. A man is (generally) physically stronger than a woman. What does testosterone do to a person? Does it make them submissive?

It's actually a little more complex - in fact, biologically humans survived better when they worked together as a group. The man's physical strength is there to help protect the community, correct? It's not meant to turn on the community and force women and children into slavery and submission. This is not natural and it's not an enjoyable position to occupy. At the very least, if that really is the reality, I would think you should have a lot of compassion for a woman being put in that position because of the random workings of evolution and the mere fact that she happened to be born a woman rather than a man. Unfortunately, human beings have the wonderful ability to take their natural propensities and twist them in such a way as to cause harm and fulfill selfish means. Women may have been forced to occupy a submissive role in which they're at the every whim of the dominant person, but if this is the natural way of things I'd say nature has a way of causing a lot of suffering.

However, studies have shown that women select mates who demonstrate less aggressive traits and are more likely to be good fathers. So really, we don't value dominance as much as people like to think.

Originally Posted by yossarian

If women want to be the glue, which I think is a hugely important job, they should be staying home and raising kids. For some reason, modern people SO disrespect full-time mothers that me saying this will be considered sexist - like it's an insult to be a mother. Wow. What does that say?

It's nice to hear that you don't think motherhood is a lesser pursuit, which is honestly why I am personally offended when I hear things such as, "You should return to your traditional role." But you have to admit, often the underlying implication when someone says that is: Women are just here to breed and take care of children. Not always but often this is the case. Even when I was little this didn't make sense to me. I remember thinking, "Isn't the whole point of being born to actually do something while you're here on earth?"

Originally Posted by yossarian

It's only modern western oppressive Christianity that has thought of women as sinful. In most cultures throughout the last 75,000 years, the natural state of the family is one where both parents have power even though they are different realms of power.

Although I agree women had influence in the past, they didn't have any rights legally, so they could never take total control of their lives if something went wrong. Situations involving abuse were almost impossible to get away from, for example. Before marriage you were the legal property of your father, and after marriage the legal property of your husband. You couldn't vote or have your own money etc. This wasn't just part of modern Christianity, but a reality in pre-Christian cultures too. Women need to have power and influence in the public realm in addition to the private sphere in order to look after their own rights and ensure society is set up to benefit them as well.

Originally Posted by yossarian

Pregnancy is the first obvious issue. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to have the pregnant person stay home than to send her out to build buildings and hunt buffalo and till the fields and run for President.

Yes, but in the past women actually did a lot more than just hang around the kids all day. Actually, because the community was structured in such a way that everyone worked and lived more communally, women could get away from the kids to complete chores and tasks such as carrying water back to the camp and gathering firewood. There was always someone to watch the kids, so you could do other things. In many ways, the individualistic modern conception of family is unnatural because this ties the woman to the home without any outside help from other community members. If anything, the men were around more too and could participate in family activities more than the modern world allows. And people seem to forget that once a child hits grade 1, they spend the majority of their day at school being educated by the government, but no one seems to have a problem with that.

Originally Posted by yossarian

Anyway I could go on for hours. I would never advocate forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do. However I honestly believe that almost everyone would be happier if they didn't fight against their own biology.

But you're making the assumption that women were happier in the past - I'm not really sure you can make that argument. What about all the housewives who were prescribed anti-depressants in the 1950s? You're also assuming that women are choosing careers against their true desires and are fighting nature. I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. What you have to understand is that little girls have aspirations too. They have talents and interests, intelligence, and an imagination. This has always existed but we were never able to follow-through on our dreams until recently.

For instance, from a very young age I was fascinated by space and wanted to be an astronaut. I was curious about the unknown and thirsted for knowledge about the secrets of the Universe. (I wanted to meet aliens and visit other planets too…haha). I devoured books and read all day whenever I had the chance. In grade two I decided I wanted to become an author and write books one day. When I got a little older I taught myself computer programming and loved playing video games. I excelled academically in all areas, especially physics and English, and couldn't wait to go to university. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Why would I have this intelligence, all these thoughts and goals if I'm not supposed to do anything with them? No one told me to be this way - I wasn't conditioned into liking astronomy and quantum mechanics or dreaming about writing a novel. If anything, going against these pursuits would have been to go against my nature - not the other way around. If I had a daughter I can’t imagine telling her she can’t do something that she wants to do. Motherhood is wonderful, but I'm a human being too.

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

It is a sacrifice - hard work to raise kids - what you may not take into account is that us doing all the inner work helped you to have a solid foundation to pursue your dreams, but shouldn't it be a little more balanced, why should only I give up my dreams?

I think this is a key point. Women staying home to keep a solid foundation and take care of the mundane tasks of survival is what traditionally allowed men to pursue their dreams. Sometimes I hear men say that women hold back progress because we "cling to safety and the home." But it's quite the opposite - the very existence of a solid home life that provides enough of a buttress against the chaotic world out there is what allowed humanity to move forward and progress.

[Apple Eye]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

Well, yeah. And after looking carefully at the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that men and women are rather different. The rainbow was pretty clear to me.

Some of these differences only show up in statistical averages (results which, alas, could have been derived from simple common sense), and others are more gender specific - neurological, hormonal or societal variations (sex hormones being a good starting point). Society may exaggerate these differences to a great extent, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Watch the documentary in my previous post.

Scientific studies in journals about cognition and intelligence always make a point to state that we share more commonalities than differences as far as cognition is concerned. The papers also tend to emphasize that they are only looking at possible biological factors without taking into account the effect of environmental influences. Environmental factors interact with the diverse amount of predispositions to produce a large variation of abilities within each sex, and we don't differ by a vast amount even in areas in which we do differ. From a paper I just read on neurobiology, in the larger comparative context, the similarities between human males and females far outweigh the differences. Again, the differences are not extreme. You seem to be stuck on the differences, as if they separate us like night and day. This is what I find bothersome about these discussions.

I read another article on a similar topic today in a science magazine. One of the scientists warned that there are dangers in over generalizing because individual women and men vary in their areas of expertise. Although there are gender differences on the average, if you take large groups of females and large groups of males and test them on a variety of traits, you'll find some characteristics that are socially induced and some that are biological. Also, biological differences often dissipate under the influence of societal bias. For instance, the slight advantage women have over men in verbal skills will often be given a negative spin - i.e. Women talk too much! No matter what, we can't win, huh? Other biases, such as an advantage in digital dexterity, don't lead to more women as neurosurgeons. Instead, they'll do something like needlepoint. In fact, many scientists are coming to the conclusion that biology is just the barest beginning. You have to look at what biologists and psychologists are saying about the mind to understand it more fully.

Studies have been done, for example, on how negative stereotypes can influence the test results of women and minorities. One study found that test scores dropped by up to 15% in comparison to a control group when participants were reminded of a negative stereotype before commencing.

I remember in one of your previous posts in another thread you mentioned something about differences in brain size, implying that women are generally less intelligent than men. But brain size is relative to body size. Essentially, women are smaller overall and thus have "smaller" brains, but relative to body size their brains aren't smaller than men's brains. I don't think it would be fair to state that a small Asian man with a "smaller" brain is less intelligent than a large white man. Comparing the size of the male and female brain is not the same as comparing the larger size of the human brain to that of other animals.

In the end, I think there still is a double standard at least in how women's accomplishments and skills are perceived. For example, if a man writes a book no one will exclaim, "Wow, I can't believe a man had the language skills to write that book!"

Originally Posted by clair08

Basically, (i know I'm going to be hated for this) I think women should return to more traditional roles in the home and let men lead. I think women should stop trying to out due men, stop trying to assert themselves over men. Women need to be submissive to their husbands. They need to let the man protect and provide for them. And I'm not saying it's wrong for a woman to have a job or be a ceo but women need to put down their briefcases and put their marriages and their family first. Women just need to act like women, step back and let the man lead.

But if this is how we organize the family, what happens when the man doesn’t protect or provide? What happens when people get divorced, or a woman is in an abusive relationship? What if your definition of acting like a woman doesn't match my definition? And as many have pointed out already, why does a woman have to be submissive if she chooses to stay home with the kids?

Originally Posted by clair08

I concur. People are always trying to say that women and men are the same when we're not. We're different in every aspect, we have different roles in society and the home. I don't see anything wrong with that and it doesn't mean that one gender is better than another.

I don't think people are trying to say we're the same. But I disagree that we're different in every aspect and that all our "roles" are different. I think of myself as a human being first and foremost. I don't know what else to say except: Women are people too!

(P.S. I wish we had evolved from reptiles and could lay eggs…LOL. Being mammals is crappy in my opinion, at least for an intelligent species.)

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by Apple Eye

(P.S. I wish we had evolved from reptiles and could lay eggs…LOL. Being mammals is crappy in my opinion, at least for an intelligent species.)

Seconded.

[yossarian]

I think the main thing you've pointed out (in your responses to the stuff I wrote) is that there are other issues with the structure of society that mean a simple thing like "women staying home" isn't actually a solution to the major social problems we have.

I totally agree. The 1950s is not a model we want. Stepford wife suburban picket fence existence is not the solution.. the solution has to involve large changes to community and social structure.

There are so many areas that I want to change, I don't even know where to begin in enunciating them.

Problem: I don't like highly structured government run education.

Solution: A system of bottom-up community education that is partially in the home, partially in the workplace, and partially within the local community of children. Curriculum free until adolescence at least.


Problem: I don't like the car-obsessed society built on suburbs, super-highways, and commutes.

Solution: A carfree society with no noise or air pollution where the streets are populated with humans on foot and most people work within walking or biking distance of home.

With these kinds of changes, as well as many others that I won't get into, gender roles can still exist while not being stifling. Flexible schooling, flexible working and flexible community living makes full-time motherhood compatible with other ambitions. Parenthood will always be a time-sink, but it should never be a 100%-of-your-time-sink. It is our dysfunctional society that pushes this extreme idea, and pushes our kids and elderly into government-care. Family-care is always more efficient and far healthier for everyone involved - assuming the society is set up in a way that allows it. And ours is not set up that way.

Society should not be stratified into age categories. The old should not be hidden away, kids should not be sent away to daycare and then school, working age adults should not be hidden away in cubicles all day. An organic society is an efficient and healthy society.

[Marco Polo]

sex difference =/= gender difference

that much is a given. THe latter is more complicated.

Originally Posted by Apple Eye

Scientific studies in journals about cognition and intelligence always make a point to state that we share more commonalities than differences as far as cognition is concerned.

Erm... duh!

If we didn't have more commonalities that would be a massive evolutionary disadvantage. Think about it. How would we be communicating right now?

The papers also tend to emphasize that they are only looking at possible biological factors without taking into account the effect of environmental influences.

Again, the differences are not extreme. You seem to be stuck on the differences, as if they separate us like night and day. This is what I find bothersome about these discussions.

No offence or anything but I don't care much what anyone "tends" to emphasize.

Further, I'm no more stuck than you are, although I can see why you'd be more comfortable boxing me that way. We could point out exceptions, ambiguities and discrepancies ad continum and at the end I would still say: gender differences should not be ignored. I want gender differences studied and acted upon, you want them away.

The way I see it is this: the gender differences are there. obvious and glaring for everyone to see. Yet biology is not the be all end all.

We humans also transcend biology, to some degree. Personal development is all about transcendence really -- taking ourselves to new heights we didn't think possible. But gender differences will still exist, of course, even if that makes you feel uncomfortable. Sure, we can get into the nitpicky science of it. Some things are quite gender specific: like estrogen and testosterone. Other things, like the structure of corpus collosum, is more complicated. blablabla, we could go on forever...

Another thing we can do is simply open our eyes to the world. We're different.

I should point out the presence of individual variation is by no means a sufficient refutation for overarching differences and their significance. But in everyday life, it IS important and we shouldnt prejudge every person by appearances. I certainly try my best not to do that.

EDIT: I found this pretty interesting article and gender.org: click

[Apple Eye]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

and at the end I would still say: gender differences should not be ignored. I want gender differences studied and acted upon, you want them away.

Please don't put words in my mouth - I never said anything about putting gender differences away. And what exactly do you mean by you want them "acted upon?" You can't force people to act a certain way. Should I put away my physics textbook and start churning out babies instead? I live my life according to my own nature right now, but that happens to include more than just baby-making, and you don't seem to believe that's even possible, or part of being female.

EDIT: The article to which you linked backs up exactly what I was saying.

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by Apple Eye

Should I put away my physics textbook and start churning out babies instead?

Yeah, go for it. Churning out babies totally sounds like your bag.

Read with me, my sexist words [from the post you just responded to]: "biology is not the be all end all.

We humans also transcend biology, to some degree. Personal development is all about transcendence really -- taking ourselves to new heights we didn't think possible.

Missed it again? Oh well. I guess physics wasn't for you.

And what exactly do you mean by you want them "acted upon?" You can't force people to act a certain way.

When I observe a distinction in my environment, I don't just ignore it and move on. I respond.

A bit like using a different OS. If I'm running Linux, I know that's different from XP. of course they're the same in the important ways -- commanilities outweight differences. Yet I also know to interact with them differently... we have open source with linux, maybe slightly better media tools with windows etc. I'm aware of the different strenghts and weaknesses, different ways of operating etc., hence I cannot treat them exactly the same.

If I had MANY different computers I would also use them for completely different tasks (that's the whole idea of specialization).

We would actually have to dumb ourselves down a little not to act on something we know to be true. That doesn't necessarily involve using "force" on anyone, at all.