Can Women Lead Men?

[Neblasian]

Good day,

Some time ago me and my friend was discussing why so many males have fallen out from important roles from our society. For instance at my former University females outnumber men by 3 to 1. Women are now dominating in sciences and still in the arts. There are more female teachers than male. Institutions like Toastmasters are dominated by females. However, when you pass the "block" in my district, what do I see? Men, using drugs, gambling, drinking alchohol. The men seem to don't care or have a drive to succeed. The women are busy running the country (Barbados). However, when you dive further into the statistics most of these men are raised by their mothers. And it is most likely most of their teachers were women. When I looked at my life, I was raised by my father and the teachers that mostly influence me are men. So I came to one conclusion men needs a men to lead. Do some of you guys agree with me or am I being a male chauvinist pig.


Regards

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Neblasian

So I came to one conclusion men needs a men to lead.

Yeah, boys need strong positive male role models (preferably their father) as part of their lives when they are growing up.

Boys raised only by women, no matter how wonderful, will face extra challenges growing up into healthy, capable men.

This is a little different than saying they need men to lead them; I think they need men to inspire them.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Neblasian

Good day,

Some time ago me and my friend was discussing why so many males have fallen out from important roles from our society. For instance at my former University females outnumber men by 3 to 1. Women are now dominating in sciences and still in the arts. There are more female teachers than male. Institutions like Toastmasters are dominated by females. However, when you pass the "block" in my district, what do I see? Men, using drugs, gambling, drinking alchohol. The men seem to don't care or have a drive to succeed. The women are busy running the country (Barbados). However, when you dive further into the statistics most of these men are raised by their mothers. And it is most likely most of their teachers were women. When I looked at my life, I was raised by my father and the teachers that mostly influence me are men. So I came to one conclusion men needs a men to lead. Do some of you guys agree with me or am I being a male chauvinist pig.


Regards

You're raising an important point and making an observation based on the evidence available to you.

I think that many men might be losing their role in society and in relationships, they're not leading anymore and this forces women to pick up the slack and it's unfamiliar territory for men consciously and subconsciously - whether people want to admit it or not.

No one says that men have to be a$$ holes and lead by force or anger or intimidation either, I think that the males examples in society that are doing just that feel that they don't have any other way to be a leader except by creating fear in others.

With the lack of positive male role models what do men do to learn these successful leadership traits?

[Neblasian]

Hi,

I think that many men might be losing their role in society and in relationships, they're not leading anymore and this forces women to pick up the slack and it's unfamiliar territory for men consciously and subconsciously - whether people want to admit it or not.

It all starts with the family. In my country women have more rights regarding children than men. For instance if a couple breaks up, it is more likely that the court will let the woman keeps the children. I have some male friends who are in a fight just to see their sons on weekends.

Boys raised only by women, no matter how wonderful, will face extra challenges growing up into healthy, capable men.

It is very sad isn't it. Most of the men I know who were raised only by their have some serious insecurity issues.


There are two types of common male role models I see in my community. Some are soap opera types obsessed with their relationships or the gangsta rapper types obsessed with their d#cks. Where are the Hannibals from the A-team who wants to save the world? This is very distressing.


Regards

[ivorytickler]

They can but I don't think men like it.

[Daffy Duck]

Are you sure that women are dominating in sciences? That goes against every college statistic I've ever been told. Men become Engineers. Women become English majors.

[ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Are you sure that women are dominating in sciences? That goes against every college statistic I've ever been told. Men become Engineers. Women become English majors.

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.

[Mr_A]

Woman can lead men if her nature is core masculine and the man’s nature is core feminine. Gender does not determine if you are core masculine or core feminie but ordinarily men are core masculine and woman are core feminie.
Men are not playing their roles so women are forced/taught to pickup the slack and take care of themselves.
Men see they are no longer needed to protect the female so they go into distraction and addiction and start using drugs, gambling, and drinking alcohol to fill in the void. No need to protect the cave from lion, tigers, and bears anymore.
Real men are an endangered species.

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by Mr_A

Woman can lead men if her nature is core masculine and the man’s nature is core feminine. Gender does not determine if you are core masculine or core feminie but ordinarily men are core masculine and woman are core feminie.
Men are not playing their roles so women are forced/taught to pickup the slack and take care of themselves.
Men see they are no longer needed to protect the female so they go into distraction and addiction and start using drugs, gambling, and drinking alcohol to fill in the void. No need to protect the cave from lion, tigers, and bears anymore.
Real men are an endangered species.

Wowser, women with core masculine? I beg to differ.

I work in the real world, as a project manager. I don't really care if I work with other PMs who are men or women. What I do care about is people who cannot do the work because of an entitlement mentality. Some of the men who wash out, come into this field with some kind of odd entitlement mentality.

What I have found as a woman leading teams of mixed men and women is that being a woman has some advantages and basically no disadvantages. I don't have to compete, because I am very good at what I do. I don't have to harass or intimidate or manage in a paternalistic manner, because it is totally unnecessary with engaged, contributing team members. I can be a cheer leader at time. I can laugh, and joke and inspire my team to have fun with what they are doing. I can encourage the playful, fun aspect of the work group, as I facilitate the process of getting a high-quality job completed on time.

This kind of leadership can be highly-effective. If you read the data on leadership, the kind of male, hard-headed, get it done driving is not necessarily effective.

What is the number one indicator of a high-producing team? A combination of feeling cared about by their boss and coworkers, plus trust and engagement (having the skills to do it is a given). The trust allows the team to sometimes expose their weak positions, which is good, because as a team, we can shore up those spots and make it work. The engagement is the passion. The being cared about is the number one indicator that someone will stay in their position and be a high-producer.

How many men nurture and mentor their team members? How many men create a work environment that is trustful, and yet highly energized? Men can do this as easily as women, but too often they don't.

I love men, and always want to see people succeed. But I cut my teeth on that old paternalistic, manly management style. For most people it is cold.

People are not machines. They need caring community, whether at work or at play. I think that men need to relook at what it means to be male in our society. I know many, many wonderful men. They are the kind of men who are kind and caring to everyone around them. Their families, their team members, etc., etc. I want the best for men as well as women in this world. From my perspective, the working world is a much better place because women are now a part of leading it.

Just some thoughts from Belle,

[Neblasian]

Belle,

You made a very valid point. Leadership still requires alot of sensitivity. But how can you help the men that completely drops out from society. I feel these men were hugged too much by their mothers they become immune to it. I think what they needs is a B!#CH SLAP. I cannot go on my block with that mentality I will probally be robbed. The guys you were refering too are probally competent secure men, these guys I am talking about are severely insecure.

Real men are an endangered species.

Very true Mr._A. The thing is, alot of guys have no idea what a real man is.



Regards

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by ivorytickler

Female chemical engineer here, speak for yourself.

I was speaking in general terms, of course. Engineers are more commonly men.

Because we are going into male fields, the tendency is that only the top women go into those fields.

So you agree there are more men in engineering, but that the women in the field are better on average. Gotcha. Sounds true to me (though I've never read any studies on this).

Originally Posted by Mr_A

Real men are an endangered species.

Depends on your definition. I could easily say that real women are an endangered species, but what do I mean by that? Are we just believing in stereotypical gender roles?

I think it is most accurate to say that both men and women usually don't live up to their potential. But then I must follow up and ask myself, who sets the bar? Who is the judge for this?

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by Neblasian

You made a very valid point. Leadership still requires alot of sensitivity. But how can you help the men that completely drops out from society. I feel these men were hugged too much by their mothers they become immune to it. I think what they needs is a B!#CH SLAP.

I'm not sure about it. I would think that single mothers become more hardened, due to their hardships, and perhaps are hard on their sons to ensure that they work hard so that their lives won't be as bad..

[Daffy Duck]

It depends on a lot of factors. My brothers and I had the same mother & father, but we all turned out a bit different.

The ideal situation is a loving family with both a mother and father. When one parent is missing, the child will generally suffer.

[Mr_A]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows
Wowser, women with core masculine? I beg to differ.

My bad bellemeadows i was thinking about couples and relationships and partners having that masculine and feminie polarity which creates passion. Your right, great leadership requires both mascline and feminie traits.

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck
Depends on your definition. I could easily say that real women are an endangered species, but what do I mean by that? Are we just believing in stereotypical gender roles?

I think it is most accurate to say that both men and women usually don't live up to their potential. But then I must follow up and ask myself, who sets the bar? Who is the judge for this?

I was taking about core masculine men. Core masculine men not honouring their masculinity
A health person has both feminie and masculine traits but they know what their core is and they work and from their core.

Masculinity Traits
-Protecting
-Conquering
-Breaking through
-Deciding
-Controlling
-Logical
-Calculated
-Systematic
-Director
-Owner
-Resolve
-Grounded
-A Mountain

Femineity Traits
-Feeling
-Connecting
-Expressing
-Flow
-Playfulness
-Faith
-Radiating
-Wild
-Out of control
-Intuitive
-Crazy sexiness
-Testing
-Dreaming
-Imagination
-The Sky
-A Storm

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by Neblasian

Belle,

You made a very valid point. Leadership still requires alot of sensitivity. But how can you help the men that completely drops out from society. I feel these men were hugged too much by their mothers they become immune to it. I think what they needs is a B!#CH SLAP. I cannot go on my block with that mentality I will probally be robbed. The guys you were refering too are probally competent secure men, these guys I am talking about are severely insecure.


Very true Mr._A. The thing is, alot of guys have no idea what a real man is.



Regards

You know, I kind of agree. It seems like a lot of men are spoiled rotten. But it also seems to me that it isn't only the women who spoil the men. We could use more role models of mature, caring men (and women as well).

I work with horses, and there are vast differences between stallions and mares. The old beliefs about stallions reflected our old beliefs about maleness, they are in total control of the herd, and they manage it. That has been found not to be true. Stallions protect the herd from other stallions. Generally the lead mare calls the shots, even with the stallion. That is why she is called the lead mare, the alpha mare, she leads the herd. Also, if a stallion is too rough or too this or that, he gets reprimanded by that mare. Stallions are even enlisted as babysitters so the mares can have some free time when the babies arrive.

This warrior model we have of manhood, I think, as a culture, influences is to coddle, and spoil men. Because as a warrior they need to be without doubt of their abilities, strong without question -- then, per that model, they go out and protect us and either die or come back a hero. But war is only one aspect of maleness. Men need a place in this world other than being warriors, like taking care of the family, and husbanding our culture. It would be good if they learned as well that the world really does revolve around women and family, and they valued it more. Women carry and raise the children. Women are the glue that holds our culture together. Men do not supply that kind of glue -- they are generally not as communicative or nurturing, often not as sensitive.

Man have a wonderful role in this world; but I think it is different from the one we've assigned them. Neither gender is more important than the other. In the warrior culture, the male is more important, and female is margenalized (sp?). In our culture today, it is important to value both genders for what they bring to the table, and appreciate the differences, instead of looking for one to be more important than the other -- instead of competing. This is the glue that can knit families together, knit cultures together.

The most happy families I see are the ones where the woman, like the lead mare, is honored for her critical role, and leads when the situation calls for it (this is known as situational leadership). Now that leadership does not look the same as what we think of as traditional leadership. Generally our model of leadership is military leadership. That only works in the military -- forget it for business or home. Situational leadership is generally more thoughtful, more collaborative, more caring; and studies show it is much more effective than military leadership; unless you are in crisis -- then momentarily military leadership works best.

The other side of that puzzle, is that stallions prance and exhibit. They are admirable and they are admired. We need to allow men to prance and show how fantastic they are, and admire them for who and what they are.

Frankly, I think too many people of both sexes are stuck in puberty for their entire lives. It is hard for men to grow up if women don't either. But there are mature caring folks of both sexes out there, as well.

Just some thoughts. Belle,

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

It would be good if they learned as well that the world really does revolve around women and family, and they valued it more. Women carry and raise the children. Women are the glue that holds our culture together. Men do not supply that kind of glue -- they are generally not as communicative or nurturing, often not as sensitive.

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

Neither gender is more important than the other.

???

If the world really does revolve around women and family, then you are saying that men are useless. No wonder when men are pushed away like you are doing, they become the warrior monsters - at least something they are good at then.

It's not my fault that I don't have the ability to carry a child. I'd gladly take it. And who says a man can't raise children?!

Generally not communicative, generally not nurturing, often not as sensitive - they're all generalizations. Doesn't mean that an individual man can't be part of the "glue".

But when you say I can't... might as well join military then..

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by Playlife

???

If the world really does revolve around women and family, then you are saying that men are useless. No wonder when men are pushed away like you are doing, they become the warrior monsters - at least something they are good at then.

It's not my fault that I don't have the ability to carry a child. I'd gladly take it. And who says a man can't raise children?!

Generally not communicative, generally not nurturing, often not as sensitive - they're all generalizations. Doesn't mean that an individual man can't be part of the "glue".

But when you say I can't... might as well join military then..

I never said men were useless. You said that. I never said men can't raise children, you said that. I never said "can't" at all, you said it.

The immature male is all the things that I described -- if you want to disagree feel free, however I don't think there is any real doubt of that. I never pushed any man away, you interpreted what I said through that filter, and pushed yourself away. What are you so afraid of?

I said that our world revolves around women and family -- there is the glue that holds our culture together. I think that is true. If it doesn't revolve around women and family, community, then what does it revolve around? And why would you find that thought so disturbing?

It looks to me that many men think the world should revolve around men. So they are lost out in the bachelor herds jousting forever. And women come into play as sexual toys and ego gratification. This, to me, is the picture of the unevolved and immature male. To the extreme, this mindset allows men to use women and children as sexual slaves all over the world; this is happening today, even in the US. This is the extreme, and brutal, yet real result of men thinking the world should revolve around men. I would not accuse men of doing such things, yet they are being done. Would you disagree? As for the military, I have no problem with the military, it has its place. But its place is not one of domination of our culture.

Yet there is another step men can take. For a mature male, being a man is relevant only if there is contrast, that which is not man, i.e., women and children, and the elderly, etc., etc. The society of a bunch of guys is not real community. To me that doesn't mean all men need to be married and committed; it does mean that they are not mature unless they are working within community -- community is not male only, or female only. It is diverse. When it is mature and caring, there is room for all, and there is care for others, not just care for onesself and one's guy buds and girl toys, and playing and the pleasures to be found there.

Without mares and foals to be raised, stallions would wander around forever in the bachelor herds, jousting with each other. It seems to me that is where the immature male is today too often; men wandering around jousting with each other, without the grounding provided by the female element and children. This is why male children are being raised by their mothers, because the men run off to joust and enjoy the chase of more females.

What do you think male maturity is all about? I heard talk of it is the woman's fault because too many men are raised without their fathers. Well, isn't it the fathers who are choosing to absent themselves from their ex-sexual conquests and their sons?

What is science without being tempered by its impact on community? What is learning if it is not used to put forward what is best for community? What is play if it is at the expense of others.

It is your belief system that is painting you into a box, not mine. In mine, I live with a lot of lovely, delightful, caring men and women. I see the others out there, but honestly, they seem rather boring to me.

The man I admire is like that stallion. Yes, there is play time. Yes there is whoppee. But there is the ability to share leadership with the lead mare and even defer leadership to her. (She is the backbone of the family, in the herd. If he gets defeated by another stallion and must move on, she will still be there, and the herd's success depends upon her.) There is the tending to the foals and the mares. There is care for community and family. There is respect.

If you want to paint your generalizations, feel free. But realize that it is you who made those points, not I. Belle,

[Playlife]

Sorry, I don't have time right now, but just one little thing:

you say "I said that our world revolves around women and family -- there is the glue that holds our culture together. I think that is true. If it doesn't revolve around women and family, community, then what does it revolve around?"

what about world revolving around women, family, community, and MEN too? Am I just a spectator looking at the wonderful world of women and community? Oh well..

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

It would be good if they learned as well that the world really does revolve around women and family, and they valued it more. Women carry and raise the children. Women are the glue that holds our culture together. Men do not supply that kind of glue -- they are generally not as communicative or nurturing, often not as sensitive.

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.

Man have a wonderful role in this world; but I think it is different from the one we've assigned them. Neither gender is more important than the other. In the warrior culture, the male is more important, and female is margenalized (sp?). In our culture today, it is important to value both genders for what they bring to the table, and appreciate the differences, instead of looking for one to be more important than the other -- instead of competing. This is the glue that can knit families together, knit cultures together.

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.

The most happy families I see are the ones where the woman, like the lead mare, is honored for her critical role, and leads when the situation calls for it (this is known as situational leadership). Now that leadership does not look the same as what we think of as traditional leadership. Generally our model of leadership is military leadership. That only works in the military -- forget it for business or home. Situational leadership is generally more thoughtful, more collaborative, more caring; and studies show it is much more effective than military leadership; unless you are in crisis -- then momentarily military leadership works best.

I think we are confusing men and women with masculinity and femininity. The happiest families are ones where the couple knows which role they are playing and are comfortable playing it. Either the man or the woman can be the leader of a household, but the leader of the household is a masculine position.

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.

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).

The other side of that puzzle, is that stallions prance and exhibit. They are admirable and they are admired. We need to allow men to prance and show how fantastic they are, and admire them for who and what they are.

This is similar with birds. The female is camouflaged while the male is bright and pretty to attract a mate. In human beings though, which gender spends an inordinate amount of time trying to attract a mate? Why is my mom a Mary Kay lady and not me?

Frankly, I think too many people of both sexes are stuck in puberty for their entire lives. It is hard for men to grow up if women don't either. But there are mature caring folks of both sexes out there, as well.

Just some thoughts. Belle,

I agree with you there.

[bellemeadows]

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. .

What do you base that on? I see fewer and fewer men even caring about family -- more are staying single than ever.

In my sense of right and wrong, leadership should never be based upon some sort of entitlement. It should be based upon who can do the best job as leader. That is the person I want to follow. If it is a woman, or a man, the best leader is the best choice.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

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.

So, where did that come from? When I say 'we', I speak culturally of the roles we have assigned men. The roles we have assigned men AND women, culturally, in my opinion, are often very limiting. We all make culture -- not men, not women, but the collective 'we'. Your assessment of my unconscious motivation is a huge stretch here, and frankly completely offbase. Covey suggests we seek first to understand the other. That would be my suggestion to you -- seek first to understand. As I've read your post, it seems to me that you and I don't have that different a viewpoint at all.

As for not competing, competition is a reality in our world. I don't have to actively compete in my work because I have the skills to perform my work very well, and I've been doing it for a long time. There really is no one who could walk in off the street and do what I do nearly as effectively for what they pay me. So in a way I guess I'm so far ahead of the competition, that it is not an issue for me.

It is however important to know that in a high-performing team, the organizational behavior studies show that team competition is actually counterproductive and saps energy and engagement. Conversely, on teams where individual, independent performance is important, competition is not counter-productive.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

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.

I agree.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I think we are confusing men and women with masculinity and femininity. The happiest families are ones where the couple knows which role they are playing and are comfortable playing it. Either the man or the woman can be the leader of a household, but the leader of the household is a masculine position.

Well, I agree with everything you said except that being leader of the household is a masculine position. Why do you consider leadership a masculine trait? I think this may be one of the most important Qs here. Is leadership a masculine trait only by definition? Then perhaps the definition of the word itself is what is shaping our thinking about leadership. Because the reality is that women lead every day.

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.

Well, that sounds awful. I'm sorry you had that experience. I've had good male leaders and good female leaders, and poor male and female leaders (bosses) as well. . . . A bad manager is a bad manager whatever the gender. One thing I've encountered from the poorer male leaders, is that as a woman, sometimes they don't seem me, I sometimes have felt invisible. Or the opposite, I used to hate it when they would stare at my chest instead of reacting to the good work I do. But I've had poor female leaders too. I don't think gender is a leadership prerequisite. The truth is, a poor manager is an awful experience. And they are out there. For me, the good news is for the last few years, I've had incredible managers, of both genders. So now I'm spoiled.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

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.

Well, I think the best combination is where you have both the thinking and the feeling. One without the other is so limiting. Not all women are all 'feeling'. My myers briggs is INT, and probably most of the women in my field are coming from the T (thinking) side . . . . .

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).

The studies in organizational behavior are changing a lot of the dynamics of how organizations are run. While the bottom-line orientation is still there, it is hard to quibble two facts: one, for most organizations, people are the most important asset the organization has, and two, the highest predictor of engagement and satisfaction for anyone working in any position (other than the fact that they have the skill for the job) is that someone cares about them in the organization, guides them, mentors them. Real leadership takes an effective leader; not a man leader or a woman leader, an effective leader. And the most effective model for leadership in a work environment just is not patriarchal in nature.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

This is similar with birds. The female is camouflaged while the male is bright and pretty to attract a mate. In human beings though, which gender spends an inordinate amount of time trying to attract a mate? Why is my mom a Mary Kay lady and not me? .

Well, I actually think men do make themselves bright and pretty to attract a mate. They work out, they dress beautifully, they ride lovely cars, they feather a beautiful nest, at least some of them. . . . just because male beauty and power doesn't wear the bright colors, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I see georgeous men every day. However, what I find is that knowing someone can take someone who is relatively plain in my eyes, and make them georgeous, and sometimes it can take someone who is beautiful to begin with, seem plain.

When I grew up, the only professional fields my family thought a woman could work in were teacher or nurse. And I knew many women among my mother's friends, who economically stuck, stayed with abusive husbands and routinely ended up beaten up in the hospital.

Lets not go back to the days when men got to do it all, not because they could do it better, but because they wouldn't let anyone else do it, and they were entitled. You said you've worked for women leaders who weren't very good -- I"ve worked for both men and women leaders who were poor and both men and women leaders who were outstanding. Gender does not make a leader.

As for the oldstyle entitlement thing, if that is what men need to be real men, we need to find another way. Because that is just not right.

[Neblasian]

Good day,

Most of my male friends dislike having a female boss because they say "women check to much". This a slang in our native language to mean they pay too much attention to things that don't really matter and they hardly see the big picture. For instance my former boss was a male, he didn't care if i came in late, if i leave early, as long as i got the job done. When he first met me; he gave me some pointers on how to survive in the work environment. I felt that if i encountered any difficulty that I could have talk to him. My current boss is a female and she "checks" alot. She watches what time you leave and what time you come in, if you wear a tie or not. She wants to know why I am not coming to the company function etc. Sometimes I find her trying to be too authoritative, but this is only on the outside. I see her submission when she deals with authority figures, she is a bit too noble to them. She does whatever she is told no matter what. She and all of my female bosses have this similar characteristic, authoritative to the subordinates but submissive to authority. This is the key difference between male and female bosses. Most of my male friends fear having female bosses because they say, "You can't trust women they snitch on you". I am not dissing women but I find they try too much to please authority, similar to wives trying to please their husbands. I know I will be flamed but I am willing to take the heat

Regards

[Mr_A]

bellemeadows i want to find out if you think/feel your core masculine or core feminie.
I believe your core feminie but you trained yourself to be masculine because you have been hurt by men in the past or your masculine examples. So you’ve picked up the slack due to your weak masculine examples. You probably dont trust that a man can take care of you as a woman.

You picked the stallion/mare metaphors because you can relate to the relationships of horses. But we're not horses or birds
I guess it’s better to relate to horses than the Black widow spider
But I worry that you may not be honouring your feminie nature. That you have limiting beliefs that being feminie is weakness or that there is no power in being feminie. Maybe you try to control too much and dont trust the process of life.

Originally Posted by bellemeadows
Well, I agree with everything you said except that being leader of the household is a masculine position. Why do you consider leadership a masculine trait? I think this may be one of the most important Qs here. Is leadership a masculine trait only by definition? Then perhaps the definition of the word itself is what is shaping our thinking about leadership. Because the reality is that women lead every day.

In history the great leaders of our time tend to be male, not to say there hasnt been the fair share of female great leaders. There’s a saying behind every great man theres a woman.
Maybe your pissed off men get more recognition than woman in our social structure. Maybe you want women to be more significant in society.
Maybe you believe women are more significant than men...

Just another thought that came to me
A woman can't respect a man she can control. This is for humans of course not horses

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Neblasian

Good day,

Some time ago me and my friend was discussing why so many males have fallen out from important roles from our society. For instance at my former University females outnumber men by 3 to 1. Women are now dominating in sciences and still in the arts. There are more female teachers than male. Institutions like Toastmasters are dominated by females. However, when you pass the "block" in my district, what do I see? Men, using drugs, gambling, drinking alchohol. The men seem to don't care or have a drive to succeed. The women are busy running the country (Barbados).

Honestly, the first word that came to my mind was "burnout". The masculine principle is not working for the males in our society and they don't see anywhere else to go. They're burnt out. They can't find happiness and reach for vices so they don't feel. They've given up the top slots... the women can have them. There's no future there. Women may be happy to fill the roles and find out for themselves the experience the male gender has been having in many aspects of science, arts, education, and work.

Originally Posted by Neblasian

However, when you dive further into the statistics most of these men are raised by their mothers. And it is most likely most of their teachers were women. When I looked at my life, I was raised by my father and the teachers that mostly influence me are men. So I came to one conclusion men needs a men to lead. Do some of you guys agree with me or am I being a male chauvinist pig.

I just don't know. The idea sounds plausible, but it could be that society has been relaxing the masculine principle a bit and this is manifesting as men raised without fathers and/or male role models, and also men not striving for position in their field.

To add to the other threads, I've not seen many women who approach life from a true feminine angle. (< 1%) Women embody the feminine, but their minds are wired masculine. And they follow their minds. It doesn't matter what your outer gender is at that point.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

Why do you consider leadership a masculine trait? I think this may be one of the most important Qs here.

I see they feminine essence as formlessness and masculine as form. Leadership takes the formless potential and directs it into a form. That's why I'd agree it's a masculine trait.

[september]

Seems as though every post in this thread is ignoring the poignant questions bellemeadows is asking. She is offering you an argument by analogy to stallions and mares, which is more than any of you can seem to string together in terms of why leadership is an a priori masculine trait. Instead, you seem obsessed with squeezing her into a round role when she has clearly shown you she is a square peg.

Step back from your personal experiences and natural hierarchies for a second and at least acknowledge that you might be occupying completely different perspectives that organize the world in equally coherent ways. I'm not saying give them up. I'm just saying see her reality as one equally coherent with your own in that they're both based in personal experiences and senses of self.

In her position, I'd be underwhelmed that you're attributing all these unconscious desires for her to be taken care of by a real man, and that she only acts the way she does because her true nature has been corrupted. Your explanations are ad hoc -- that is, they provide explanations custom-built for the problem with your views that she presents, and offer no independent evidence that your claims are right.

Your explanations sound like hokey psychoanalytics. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, guys. If this is really how you think about all your female peers in your field, perhaps you need to rethink the reality you're living in... if it's that preposterous to consider that men might play an auxilliary role in leadership, and that such a thing might be okay, then just consider that a female might have the same reaction of indignation that you are having when presented with that possibility.

[Tigerlilly]

Originally Posted by JSB

Boys raised only by women, no matter how wonderful, will face extra challenges growing up into healthy, capable men.

I'm really curious to know what sort of challenges they might be facing.

As odd as it may sound I've never so far personally known a guy who was just raised by a single mom, so I have no idea what they might be like in comparison to guys who were raised by both parents.

So to all you single-mom raised guys out there, what extra challenges are you coping with?

I think basically women can lead men, Elizabeth I. and Katharina the Great certainly did so in a time when old roles of male and females were still in place, and their respective countries profited from their reign big time.

Personally though, I'd never want to have to walk in those shoes.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Tigerlilly

So to all you single-mom raised guys out there, what extra challenges are you coping with?

None.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by september

Seems as though every post in this thread is ignoring the poignant questions bellemeadows is asking. She is offering you an argument by analogy to stallions and mares, which is more than any of you can seem to string together in terms of why leadership is an a priori masculine trait. Instead, you seem obsessed with squeezing her into a round role when she has clearly shown you she is a square peg.

Step back from your personal experiences and natural hierarchies for a second and at least acknowledge that you might be occupying completely different perspectives that organize the world in equally coherent ways. I'm not saying give them up. I'm just saying see her reality as one equally coherent with your own in that they're both based in personal experiences and senses of self.

In her position, I'd be underwhelmed that you're attributing all these unconscious desires for her to be taken care of by a real man, and that she only acts the way she does because her true nature has been corrupted. Your explanations are ad hoc -- that is, they provide explanations custom-built for the problem with your views that she presents, and offer no independent evidence that your claims are right.

Your explanations sound like hokey psychoanalytics. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, guys. If this is really how you think about all your female peers in your field, perhaps you need to rethink the reality you're living in... if it's that preposterous to consider that men might play an auxilliary role in leadership, and that such a thing might be okay, then just consider that a female might have the same reaction of indignation that you are having when presented with that possibility.

It'd be helpful if you quoted some sections so the posters could respond to you and/or gain further explain of your points. Or at least I need remedial help on who you're referencing here.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

What do you base that on? I see fewer and fewer men even caring about family -- more are staying single than ever.

Thirty one years of dealing with a domineering mother. The problem that we're talking about here is men being raised by single women, which has led to a society of men who never grow up and women who have all the power and responsibility. It's not good for the women or men. I don't think the answer is asking women how men should be.... that's the problem in the first place.

In my sense of right and wrong, leadership should never be based upon some sort of entitlement. It should be based upon who can do the best job as leader. That is the person I want to follow. If it is a woman, or a man, the best leader is the best choice.

I think you and I agree that both men and women can lead. It's your definitions of men and women I have a problem with.

So, where did that come from? When I say 'we', I speak culturally of the roles we have assigned men. The roles we have assigned men AND women, culturally, in my opinion, are often very limiting. We all make culture -- not men, not women, but the collective 'we'. Your assessment of my unconscious motivation is a huge stretch here, and frankly completely offbase. Covey suggests we seek first to understand the other. That would be my suggestion to you -- seek first to understand. As I've read your post, it seems to me that you and I don't have that different a viewpoint at all.

If men are just sort of accessories to the core of society (women), then what does their opinion matter in the deal? I thought your comment was sexist. Your basically saying that women are whole people, they can lead and their sensitive and caring. Men on the other hand are like stallions, they can protect and occasionally babysit children. I am all for understanding you here. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Just calling it as I see it.

As for not competing, competition is a reality in our world. I don't have to actively compete in my work because I have the skills to perform my work very well, and I've been doing it for a long time. There really is no one who could walk in off the street and do what I do nearly as effectively for what they pay me. So in a way I guess I'm so far ahead of the competition, that it is not an issue for me.

It is however important to know that in a high-performing team, the organizational behavior studies show that team competition is actually counterproductive and saps energy and engagement. Conversely, on teams where individual, independent performance is important, competition is not counter-productive.

That's interesting, since there is no one who can compete with you, what motivates you? I think men tend to be motivated by competition: results oriented, going for the number one spot. I asked my girlfriend about this. She is a special ed teacher and I in no way envy her job. I would be easily frustrated in that environment because I like to see tangible results in what I do.

I agree with you... too much competition is a bad thing. So is too much cooperation.

Is leadership a masculine trait only by definition? Then perhaps the definition of the word itself is what is shaping our thinking about leadership. Because the reality is that women lead every day.

By masculine I mean the proactive yang principle. By feminine I mean the receptive yin principle. We all have both qualities working through us. The tendency is that men are more yang and women are more yin. It's a tendency not a rule... I think that has been the problem in our society. The roles for many years were clearly defined, but not everybody can fit in those definitions. Now people are confused. They don't know what they're supposed to be.

There are men (me included) who were raised to be feminine males, but their tendency is to be masculine. They're told one thing and feeling another. This has been the source of a lot of personal problems for me and many men in my generation (gen X). In a word, insecurity. Some men don't have a problem being that way... they have a natural tendency towards the yin.

When I grew up, the only professional fields my family thought a woman could work in were teacher or nurse. And I knew many women among my mother's friends, who economically stuck, stayed with abusive husbands and routinely ended up beaten up in the hospital.

Has the level of domestic violence gone down or up since when you were a kid? How about the cost of living? Two people have to work to support a home. Children are raised by daycares and television. I'm not suggesting we go back to the bad ol' days, but the creation of new societal norms like this has not been to our benefit. I question if we really appreciate women for being women just because now they can work in more professions than teaching and nursing.

[september]

I really think all the posters in this thread arguing for a masculine/feminine dichotomy are offering poor reasons for thinking the way they do, and I'd like to hear actual arguments out of them for why gender necessitates the "leadership" or "submissive" trait, among others that have been brought up here.

Dharma, take your comment --

Originally Posted by Dharma

I see they feminine essence as formlessness and masculine as form. Leadership takes the formless potential and directs it into a form. That's why I'd agree it's a masculine trait.

To begin with, formlessness and form are just not-x and x. I'm going to read "formlessness" as substance and continue to read form as form, because I think you mean that the feminine essence is the raw "stuff" in the equation, perhaps in blobby or gelatinous shape, and the masculine essence gives it vector and direction.

Your post in response to bellemeadows' question distills down to:
(1) I see a feminine/masculine dichotomy.
THEREFORE, I believe leadership is a masculine trait.

But it seems as though her question is more penetrative than that. She is asking, why would a masculine/feminine dichotomy, with different cores, necessitate that the male be the leader? She's being quite charitable by giving you the dichotomy out of hand. It's true that the two sexes have different physiologies, and perhaps that's a good reason to believe their senses of life are fundamentally different in some ways. But, it's up to you and to Belle to offer reasons for why you think those differences are what you think they are, you've offered no connection between the existence of the dichotomy and the conclusion that leadership should fall on the masculine side. You need a (2) that provides some causal or other efficacious link between your premise and your conclusion.

Perhaps you see a different dichotomy than she does. I only assume that's the case. But to make the argument stick, you need to provide a path of reasoning for us to agree with your dichotomy, rather than the one Belle provides reasoning for. To perhaps take words out of Belle's mouth, I'd think her next question to you might be: But why should I also take the feminine/masculine dichotomy to be femininity as substance and masculinity as form?

She provided a reason that strikes out the inductive argument: in the past, women have generally been stripped of rights, and often (take Immanuel Kant, for instance) not regarded as human persons, because they were seen as incapable of rational thought. Mary Wollstonecraft began turning the gears in print to impoverish men of this notion. Belle also provided an apt analogy supporting her conclusion (that women are better situational leaders) by providing that her conclusion is the case in another species that we interact with often and can work with, and often reason with. Your argument, absent an inductive or deductive path of reasoning, offers no reason at all currently to support your conclusion.

Is that a bit more clear?

I'd be happy to hear whatever arguments you do have. Often, it's difficult to put one's thoughts to the page the best way the first time. (That's called giving someone a charitable reading. It's also what I've been suggesting you do for Belle, instead of just jumping all over her and assuming she's wrong.)