Women Leaders - get over the hype
78The popular mainstream media would have us believe that female leaders are not only as good as male leaders but better. They’re smarter, more caring and less aggressive. Almost every publication about women leaders you read or hear in the media along with most politicians’ public statements say that women leaders are THE future for society. What surprises me is how persistent this “view” is in society. Most silly trends come and go within a few years but this one has lasted for decades now and people just aren't getting bored with it.
So why do I think it’s nonsense? Because it’s the same as saying blue-eyed people have special leadership qualities. Sorry but you so aren’t going to convince me that women can do anything job related better than men BECAUSE OF THEIR GENDER. The same goes the other way around unless it's a job that requires certain physical characteristics. Men and women are just people, no more and no less. Of course, the average woman is likely to differ from the average man and that might manifest itself in different strengths and weaknesses. But averages of one half of the population compared with the other half don’t make very good points for comparison. It says nothing about you or me as individuals but that is exactly what counts when you’re evaluated by an employer for your abilities. The last thing you want is to have your entire gender projected onto you by someone who’s supposed to judge your employability objectively.
Popular Myths about Women Leaders
- Women leaders are a new phenomenon. No, It’s just sold to us as something new. The past may have only seen few women leaders but they certainly did exist throughout history.
- Men typically have a problem with women leaders. Everyone has a problem with leaders and authority and it has nothing to do with gender. It’s natural for subordinates to have a subconscious resentment towards their superiors. In fact I’ve read a study a while back that shows that women leaders are more often in conflict with female subordinates than male. I can believe that.
- Male leaders are more
aggressive than female leaders. This is a big one. I really wonder where
some of these myths come from. I don’t know of any studies that go into
this but I think most of us can confirm that there’s every bit as much
conflict among women leaders as there is among male leaders. Think about it, becoming a CEO requires a lot of hard work along with a necessary dose of ambition and aggression. That's the nature of leadership. You don't get there by being nice and submissive and relying only on your sweet smile. If you're not willing to do a bit of elbowing your way up, then you'll be pushed out of the way by others who are - male or female. No, men did NOT make it that way. It's a natural and logical consequence of the competitive work places. In female dominated competitive environments it is just as cut throat and ruthless. If you don't believe me, take a look at what goes on between the participants of beauty contests. Men didn't invent aggressive behavior, it is what you get when more people want something than can be accommodated.
- Women leaders are more risk
averse than men. Actually this is true but what’s not true is that
it’s necessarily a good trait. It depends on the circumstances. To get
ahead, taking risks is often necessary. Anyone who’s been in a competitive
environment can assure you that playing it safe won't harm you but it will also not get you very far.
It’s not about taking risks or not. It’s about weighing out the
reward/risk ratio. I.e. “Is it worth the risk?”. So being risk averse is
sometimes good, sometimes not. The bottom line is that you have to know
when to take what risks and when to play it safe. After that, clever people also work out the odds. For example, playing the lottery is not a sensible risk to take even though the risk is small (the price of a ticket) and the potential reward is huge (the jackpot). It's the odds that make it a bad choice. The chances of winning are so low that it still becomes a losing game.
So I hope I’ve cleared up a few misunderstandings about women leaders. Just think of women as people. That’s all we really want and anyone who wants more, doesn’t belong in a leadership position anyway.
Some other articles you might like:
 | Amazon Price: $11.48 List Price: $19.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $28.95 List Price: $29.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $7.24 List Price: $15.00 |
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (4)
- Funny (2)
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
You couldn't be more wrong. Women Leaders are concensus builders which makes them more risk adverse. Male leaders are more aggressive than female leaders. When has any female politician, female CEO or female Harvard business student jumped over their desk and attacked physically attacked their opponent? Never in recorded modern history. Spreading your view doesn't make it true. Women are sactioned as Bitches when aggressive, while men are rewarded as assertive. When you become Female leader then you can be an expert, until then your opinion is so far off it is almost laughable.
Thanks for sharing BCR.
I take it you think women are better leaders than men, right? Because my opinion is that neither is better, but you adamantly disagree with that and go on to defend women leaders exclusively while only attacking men leaders. At least tell us your views before just putting other views down.
I don't know what physical assault has to do with the matter. It is not typical behavior of male leaders either. You'll find the vast majority of male leaders are quite non-violent. The fact that you even bring that up as an argument is indicative of a strong bias on your part rather than expertise.
"Spreading your view doesn't make it true".
Doesn't make it false either.
You have no idea how much experience I have with leadership, so criticizing that is just a poor ad hominem argument. Attack my views please and not me.
'Because it’s the same as saying blue-eyed people have special leadership qualities.'
I think you are minimizing the huge biological differences between Woman and males. Specialy when We look to how Our respective brain work. The Female multitasking among other things is something males lack. In tasks needing parallel processing males can't compeat. Now, do this or any others differences make Us better leader? I can't tell you. Do leadership need parallel processing? And if so do this give Us a decisive adventage?
'public statements say that women leaders are THE future for society'
That's a fact since Our males are massively failling in our education system, and that We are in some universities more than 70% of the students. Remain few males to postulate...
Hello Lucy,
Once more I find myself enjoying one of your well written articles. I also find myself agreeing with your assessment of the situation as well. It is not one’s gender that determines their capability to lead or their success in a leadership position.
One problem from my thinking is that far too many individuals see the field of gender as black and white. Either you are female or you are male and thus you must contain and be limited to the common accepted abilities and mental assets which are prescribed to belong to the specific gender.
Sorry to burst everyone’s bubble but black and white are only the end points of gender the majority of individuals fill in the middle as various colors of grey. I know women who could not multitask to save their lives and I know men that can multitask like there was no tomorrow. I have met women who are actively aggressive, hot tempered, and prefer to do what they want to rather then come to a consensus. Yet I know men who live the idea of mutual compromise for the betterment of the whole.
Leadership requires a variety of skills that one must possess to be considered a good leader. Neither gender holds a monopoly on these traits nor is guaranteed to have any of them. The world needs to wake up and stop judging large sections of society through stereotypes and general assumptions. Each person must be looked at and taken as an individual not as simply part of some group.
The assumption that women should rule the future of leadership is just as ridiculous as the idea that men should rule the future of leadership. Leadership should be held by the individual most capable of succeeding in the mission to direct the movement of the whole regardless of gender. A majority of a gender may indeed seem to possess some traits that tend to be lower in a large section of the other. However, that does not make that gender any more qualified to lead. This is the real world and situations consistently change. We may not like it but unfortunately there are times where aggression is necessary. There are also times that compromise and consensus is required in a leader. People need to remove the blinders and earplugs and understand these are just traits not genders and individuals.
Often individuals like to point out how so many male leaders have failed or not done a so called good job. Certainly that statement and determination is subjective and all one needs to do is look at the state of discussion about the present sitting leadership. What individuals also forget to look at is how many male leaders did wondrous things and advanced society some even to their deaths. Many of the situations that they confronted and overcame would not have been defeated through what so many in society like to refer to as the female traits. Thus the ability to do what must be done is far more necessary to a leader than any specific one or two traits. A perfect example of this is through the use of two females that ran for a public leadership position like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. One I believe would do a good job and would strive to guide the country into the future and the other one I would not vote in as the local dog catcher.
Thus it is and will always be the individual and not the specific gender of that individual that makes them capable of leading. I end with a quote from Michael Shaara, “people must be viewed as the individual; anyone who judges by the group is nothing more than a pea whit.”
Once again it was a wonderful article Lucy and I enjoyed reading it.
Thanks
Nicole
As much as i love women i think there would be more conflict with a world full of female only leaders. They would probably go to war over things that men find trivial. And as some suggest that we should only have female leaders we would then be installing some sort of dictatorship which would mean more civil wars.
Personaly i dont even think women were oppressed in history. They might have been sidelined and ignored, but men were truely oppressed compared to them. Its funny how the womens lib popped up at the same time men were emerging from coal pits and steel works and when work in offices with heating and air conditioning was more common. If you could lay bricks and put up scaffolding right now by pressing buttons and signing forms, women would no doubt want these jobs too. And then feminist historians would tell us women were traditionaly kept out of these areas because they were deemed inferior by sexist men.
Anyway women leaders dont care about anyone but themselves. Male leaders do things for the benefit of women such as increasing female health care and education. Since when though has a female politician spearheaded a campaign to fight prostate and testicular cancer? Or help boys falling behind in education?
I will say NO to female leaders. I think they present a terrible danger. And if you want to complain about violence then i would say look at how much peace and technological advancement has come from violence. In WW2 we built and thought rockets were just for killing people. Now they are used to transport us to other planets and invent new medicines in Zero G.
I love women, but could they do anything to match this?
Hi Davyboy,
I appreciate you voicing your opinion here but please spare us all with things like blatant sexism.
Lucy83,
There was nothing remotely sexist in what i said. But i fully understand how you percieve it that way. Now the suggestion that men cause more wars is sexist. I am simply suggesting there would be little to no difference with women in control of things. But perhaps there might be a few more wars due to the dictatorship of women leaders if we only allowed females to rule. Dont forget many women in politics all over the West want to have female leaders only.
I do also think i have a good point regarding the differences between men and women in politics. You really cant call any criticism of women from a man as blatant sexism.
Davyboy,
first of all, you should read the article properly before commenting. Then come back and give me your opinion.
As for you being sexist:
"...i think there would be more conflict with a world full of female only leaders. They would probably go to war over things that men find trivial. "
If you don't see any sexism in that, then try reversing the genders and then you might notice. Oh, wait, you do exactly that in this sentence:
"Now the suggestion that men cause more wars is sexist. "
I agree with that but why are you telling me? Oh, wait, you think I said that because you just skimmed the article and spotted it under the Myths section (get it? MYTHS - i.e. I don't think that is true).
Like I said, READ before arguing.
Lucy83
There are inherent differences between men and women, and as men and women we will cricise each other other. I suggested women would go to war over things that men would find trivial is an example of these differences. It is not sexism, so i urge you not to look at it that way.
And no i didnt think "men causing more wars" was a belief you held personaly. It is however a belief that is extremely popular among many woman who want complete dominance in politics. And i expect you must know this. I did not accuse you of anything, but i do think now that you are a little over sensitive and are eager to cry sexism over nothing. I am not just reading your blog, i am also commenting on general attitudes among the population. I kindly ask you not try to control what i think and mean.
"It is however a belief that is extremely popular among many woman who want complete dominance in politics. And i expect you must know this. "
Of course I know it. I WROTE it but you wouldn't know since you didn't read my article. I only disagree that it's just women who say that. Men are saying this just as much and here I regularly argue with such men over it.
So I'm sensitive over sexism. Guilty as charged. You should know that most of the arguing that takes place in these articles, is me defending men against sexism from other men. Oh, but you would already know that if you bothered to read. Am I too sensitive over sexism? I don't think so. In my experience people are always a little more sexist than they think they are.
Of course, the way you restated that as a "difference but not sexism" makes it sound much more harmless but that's not the way you said it the first time. So if this is the real meaning, then I might not see it as sexism.
Also, using the "differences" argument is problematic because you could justify any sexist remark with it. For example, you could justify the statement that boys do less well at school than girls because they're less intelligent and call it one of those "natural differences" and that by your interpretation would not be sexism - just pointing out differences. Sadly, many people do this and it is harming boys and preventing us from finding the true cause for boys doing less well.
Sexist or not, the remark that women would go to war over things men would consider trivial is just plain false and nothing but cheap guesswork extrapolated from gender-cliches. It's the same kind of thinking that makes people say that women would be less inclined to go to war which is just as false.
Lucy83
I did read your articles, this one anyway. And perhaps i am not reading as you intended. As i said i am also talking about many things outside of this such as attitudes towards having women leaders. I never said either it was only women, in fact i did not mention men who have this view. But now i will. I personally believe these attitudes among men come from a vicious attack on masculinity over the past 40 years. Men have little confidence in themselves and are ignored by society since feminism grew like a cancer.
You are correct that some people can be a little more sexist than they realise, and i would ask if this is something you have ever applied to your self? Everyone has been sexist, but only men seem punishable for it and are often accused of it when they have not been. It is natural for men and women to criticise each other and i certainly make no apology for the great many things i have said about women during my life. Because i know however sexist i may have been women are equally if not more sexist these days and are encouraged to be so.
Using differences is not problamatic Lucy. Difference are real whether we like it or not. We are human beings, not gods. And as a result we are not perfect and men will be different from women. Many female politicians say it is nothing more than male testosterone and inbuilt aggression that lead to war. That is sexist. Currently women do not rule the world and what i said was only a suggestion based on difference between how men and women see the world, one that might be true to many men and false to others. If the world was ruled by women who are you to say that wars started by them would not be seen as trivial to many men? So it is not false.
Dont many women find going to war in Iraq as having been over trivial male/testosterone/aggressive reasons to punish the Muslim world for what happened on 9/11?
Men and women do look at things differently, while at other times looking at them in exactly the same light. I realise i have probably made this into a bigger issue than you intended it to be, but i was accused of being sexist when i wasnt being sexist at all. I suggested many men would see it that way. I didnt specifically speak for myself.
"... and i would ask if this is something you have ever applied to your self?"
Sigh. The "same to you" defense.
Well here's your answer: Yes, I do try to hold myself to the same standard as I hold others and you have failed that standard as I pointed out. I can't and won't force you to admit that your remarks were sexist but, until you give me reason to believe otherwise, I will stick with that impression.
"Because i know however sexist i may have been women are equally if not more sexist these days and are encouraged to be so."
I see. So it's because "they do it too". Great. So much for holding oneself to the same standard. I don't even disagree that women are probably more sexist than men on average. But using that as a justification for more sexism is just infantile.
Can't we have a spitting contest or something? That would be more fruitful than this.
I know differences are real and never disputed that. But using them as a justification for sweeping generalizations about genders is forcing those differences on everyone. Fact is, that those differences you're referring to are between the average man and woman. But you just transfer it into something that applies to virtually all men and women and THAT is when it becomes sexism. That transition was what you haven't noticed and it's the same mistake as so many people make. Just like those who say "men are violent" because more violent crimes are committed by men. They are taking statistical differences between the genders and imposing it on all members of, in this case, the male gender.
"If the world was ruled by women who are you to say that wars started by them would not be seen as trivial to many men? So it is not false."
First of all, you are the one who made that remark so the burden of proof is on you. Care to share with us how you came to that ridiculous conclusion? I mean, what "trivial" things are you even talking about? You must have had something in mind when you thought up that phrase. Surely, you didn't just make it up to have a dig at female leaders.
Lucy83
I have not failed any standard, i have said something you personaly did not like and blew out of proportion. My comment was not said to you directly, but again you have taken it personaly.
And no, you are misunderstanding. The reason i do not apologise for the many sexist things i have said in my life is because it is natural for men and women to behave like this. This however does not make you a sexist. And no it has nothing to do with justifying it because others do it to me. If you live your life with the idea that you are better than someone because you are a woman or man then you are a sexist. I dont live like this.
Suggesting a spitting contest seems to show how emotioanl you have become over this subject and is its self childish behaviour you ought to control.
And again no. I am not generalising anyone, i said quite clearly than many men would find wars started by women as trivial while others may not. I did not say all men. Nothing sexist was said at all, but i feel that women often percieve things as sexism when they are uncomfortable with a man expressing his views. So in other words they become sexist. If i had said the word "people" rather than men, would you have been so sexist as to accuse me of sexism? But then again this is a page about men and women, or more accurately women leaders. This whole page is about gender, so as opposed to men as leaders we are talking about women as leaders. In which case it was fitting that i said many men would find their wars trivial.
What burden of proof are you talking about? Do you wish me to travel the world and quiz men about whether they think women ruling the world would go to war over trivial reasons? Do i then bring back the results and show them to you?
And no i didnt have anything in mind when i used that word Lucy. It is just to show that while aggressive man hating women say men are the cause of war, many men would probably see women going to war for rediculous reasons also. AGAIN i did not speak for myself.
Personaly there were one or two things in my original comment that are arguably more sexist than any of this.
Here we go again.
"I have not failed any standard"
I decide what standard I hold you to so it is I who decides when you have failed it. And by that standard you are sexist. Saying something else would only be dishonest on my part. I'm tired of showing you why. If you don't see it by now then no amount of proof will change your mind. But just because you don't think you're being sexist, doesn't mean that you aren't.
"If you live your life with the idea that you are better than someone because you are a woman or man then you are a sexist."
That is one example of a sexist but by no means the only one. Just because you don't live like that doesn't mean you're not a sexist.
"Suggesting a spitting contest seems to show how emotioanl you have become over this subject and is its self childish behaviour you ought to control."
The only emotion I feel here is irritation with such a low level of discussion. It's a waste of time. You only want to squabble, can't handle criticism, refuse to self reflect and ignore solid arguments and then pretend you've refuted them. The more you go on, the more silly this becomes.
"i said quite clearly than many men would find wars started by women as trivial while others may not. I did not say all men."
Here is what you actually said:
"They would probably go to war over things that men find trivial"
I'll leave it to the other readers to decide for themselves if that's sexism or not. I'm done squabbling over it.
"but i feel that women often percieve things as sexism when they are uncomfortable with a man expressing his views."
There you go again. More sexism. But I suppose you disagree on that too. Don't bother arguing, just let people make up their own minds. We're not going to see eye to eye on this anyway.
"If i had said the word "people" rather than men, would you have been so sexist as to accuse me of sexism?"
Don't you give me loaded questions like that.
"What burden of proof are you talking about?"
I told you what I wanted.
"And no i didnt have anything in mind when i used that word Lucy. "
Then don't use it.
"It is just to show that while aggressive man hating women say men are the cause of war, many men would probably see women going to war for rediculous reasons also. "
Pure speculation, poorly worded, even more poorly thought out and full of vague undefined terms. What constitutes "ridiculous reasons" anyway? At least give us an example or risk losing the last shred of credibility you may still have.
Lucy83
You are not very intelligent are you?
I saw your page on women leaders and decided to comment on it. I was not directly commenting at you. And if you think you set the standard then you have a hell of alot to learn about life in general, i dont care for you standards, but i will listen to and perhaps respect your opinion. Believing that the world should obey your standards is quite deluded. And what i think we have here is a case of a young woman being sexist even though she does not mean to be or knows she is being sexist. Perhaps if i were a woman who made that comment you may have thought it was just a woman suggesting something and thought nothing more of it?
I never said that was the only definition of a sexist, so please stop trying to find cause to correct what i say when you know there is no need to. And as for criticism i believe i have handled it just fine, after all i have not come back to you with petty insults. I have only come back to you reinforcing my argument, which seems to be another thing you dont like. Sorry, but this is how an adult debate should be. I have my view and i stick by it, i also rightly argue back against you when you call me a sexist. I have not been sexist and still maintain that you are becoming the more sexist of the two of us.
And yes i disagree with you calling me a sexist (again) for saying that women periceve men as sexist when they express their views. The fact is Lucy we live in a world in which men are treated as second class citizens and women are regarded with a higher status and encouraged by education, media and mainstream culture to treat men badly. So i will say again, and can back it up with many examples, that men who express views that women generaly disagree with are accused of sexism by these womens own narrow minded sexist views. Take the creator of cartoon series Dilbert. He was recently hushed for saying men in the West are given a raw deal. Take the British politican who also said the same not long ago. Of course this is getting a little more involved than your article must have intended, but i feel they are relevant examples after you sexistly accuse me of sexism.
Lucy83 i have lost no credibility, but you have certainly lost this argument. Keeping in mind you created this argument when there was no need, you have also become increasingly emotional with every post.
If you want an example of trivial reasons then lets look at the idea of women only leaders. This as i mentioned would be a dictatorship that would exclude half the population from politics. Say many of the male population became more politicaly active and increasingly militant. Any government whether lead by a woman might seek to crush this opposition if the rule was that only women could rule. Men may see this whole situation for going to war as trivial and above all unecessary. Joking around lets say a vital ingrediant for womens favourite lip stick was in short supply, it may not be impossible women leaders would invade other countries to obtain this ingrediant.
Lucy i came here and left a comment not expecting any of this. But even though you have been a sexist without knowing it, i dont accuse you of generaly being sexist. But more to the point and as i mentioned, men and women do look at things differently. What seems vital to men is not always seen as vital to women - I am speaking of men and women in politics.
"You are not very intelligent are you?"
Lol. Is that supposed to get at me somehow? And you dare lecture me about how adults should debate.
"Believing that the world should obey your standards is quite deluded"
Never said it should. Don't put words in my mouth. I judged you by my standard - the same with which I scrutinize my own words and everybody else's. You don't have to agree but you do have to accept it because you are a guest here and I'm allowing you to publish your words in my space. Common courtesy requires it.
"And what i think we have here is a case of a young woman being sexist "
Show me exactly where and why I was sexist or I this conversation is over. Just throwing accusations for no reason other than deflecting accusations that were made against you is not good enough.
"Perhaps if i were a woman who made that comment you may have thought it was just a woman suggesting something and thought nothing more of it?"
No. It is your comment that was sexist - regardless of your gender. But thanks for yet another baseless insinuation.
"after all i have not come back to you with petty insults"
Liar:
"...how emotioanl you have become over this subject and is its self childish behaviour you ought to control."
"you have certainly lost this argument."
There's nothing to "win" in this squabble but you certainly wouldn't be the first to declare victory in the face of defeat.
"Joking around lets say a vital ingrediant for womens favourite lip stick was in short supply, it may not be impossible women leaders would invade other countries to obtain this ingrediant."
I didn't ask for joking examples but for real ones.
"you have been a sexist without knowing it"
Another cheap attack. Anyone knows that you can't defend against a "you're xyz without knowing it" accusation. I could say the same about you about anything. You're a racist and you don't know it. Very bad form to talk to people like that but not surprising in your case.
Lucy83
It is not ment to get at you. It was simply an observation that i voiced. It is up to you to prove me wrong (if you want to). And no lecture intended, i have every right to point out you are not entirely behaving like an adult. And as for your standards, if they reflect your views outside of this blog then i will maintain you have a hell of alot to learn. Your standards as you put it seem to put you in the driving seat and perhaps allow you control and dominance over discussions. I dont accept your standards, but i do accept the standards of common decency and have upheld them.
And as for your sexism i believe i made it quite clear and provided two examples for you being the cartoon creator of Dilbert and the British Politician who were both forced to retract statements they recently made about men in Western society being given a raw deal. They said something that women in general did not like and were wrongly attacked for doing so. You likewise have attacked me for saying something you did not like because i am a man who said it. That is sexist, and just like those two men i have also been accused of sexism which is just wrong.
I am not a liar Lucy, i have observed that you have become quite emotional and childish. As a human being i have the right to make that observation whether it is right or wrong. It is not an insult, but i can understand how it can be taken as insulting by you especially if you dont believe you have done anything to deserve it. I on the other hand do believe you deserve such criticism and stick by it.
I will agree this has turned into a squabble, but i can say with the fullest confidence i did not turn it into this. Again you are not debating a topic like an adult. If you were you would be keeping your cool much better and countering my argument without expressing your personal feelings on the matter, and that i irritate you. In other words you have shown that your feelings are getting the better of you.
As i mentioned before, women do not currently rule the world so i cannot give you real examples. I can only give you an example of differences between men and women that would cause some men to see womens wars in a women only world as trivial. And the examples i did give i believe were good enough to give you the idea. At least they should and i am concerned that you dont realise this.
Now, i understand we could continue like this for a while so i expect you wont back down or consider you might be wrong. I for the sake of peace would be willing to meet you somewhere in the middle.
I stand by my origianl comment Lucy and i do believe that a world ruled by women would be very dangerous indeed. Again i know this isnt specificaly what your article is about, but as it is about women leaders it is valid to mention this idea that only women should rule. You have not really commented on this yet.
"And as for your sexism i believe i made it quite clear and provided two examples for you being the cartoon creator of Dilbert and the British Politician who were both forced to retract statements they recently made about men in Western society being given a raw deal. They said something that women in general did not like and were wrongly attacked for doing so. "
Those are not examples of my behavior. Duh! How in the world am I responsible for what has happened to those people or what they did? You only draw that parallel because of my gender which makes you, guess what, a sexist.
"You likewise have attacked me for saying something you did not like because i am a man who said it."
You tried that one before sweetie. At best it's just a guess on your part. On the whole my impression of your 'reasoning' is that you you should learn to differentiate between a guess and a well founded opinion. It would have spared us a lot of time.
And as for your repeatedly labeling me as childish, that is just a feeble attempt to swindle your way out of an honest debate. Anyone can throw out ad homini in place of reason. I have demonstrated far too much patience with such bad mannered behavior and I'm putting a stop to it. You will from now on:
1) refrain from using personal attacks entirely.
2) backup your 'observations' with reason.
And by backing up with reason I mean, among others:
a) Not relying on a joke as the only example,
b) not relying entirely on events that I have no control over to judge my behavior and
c) not using a guess as if it were a confirmed fact.
I'm going to ignore anything that doesn't meet that standard.
Lucy83
There is a comparison between the way those two men i mentioned were treated and the way you have treated me. They spoke up in defense of men and were labelled sexist for it. I was similarly labelled a sexist by you for a comment you took personaly and as disrespectful to women. I have since explained to you it was not sexist and perhaps you have been a little sexist yourself in jumping to the conclusion i was. But you are right, you have no control over what happened to those men. Although why you had to say that is beyond me. Believe it or not there are generalities in some behaviours and attitudes among men and women. I reminded you society treats men alot worse than women, always has. I also reminded you that in our culture women are raised and often respected by society for treating men badly. Even though you might not realise it i would guess that many of the things you think of about men are due to the way society in general treats them - the society you were raised and influenced in. That is why i believe you were sexist to accuse me of sexism when i made that comment. Again i said something that was in no way sexist but you simply did not like it and called me a sexist for it. Much like what happened to those two men. I will also use my guesses as i see fit. I cannot tell you facts about everything and would not presume i could do so. Indeed when researching for facts you often have to start with a guess.
Your childish attempts at laying down the rules here are very sad. You have created an argument and lost it. You are speaking sarcastically, which further shows you have lost control of this argument and yourself.
No insult intended, but you are an incredibly childish person. Your behaviour now makes me consider further the problems of having women leaders. I genuinely dread to think of women like you (you are a woman) behaving like this while in the seat of goverment power. If i were the opposition to your government and it were my job to make you lose credibility would you be behaving in such an imature way as you are now?
You dont make the rules in this life. I am a free person and i am free thinking. Being sarcastic and calling me "sweetie" does not elevate your position in this argument. Despite you turning this into an infantile argument i have not lowered myself to your level. Indeed i have come back with other comments from my original post, while you continue the argument over who is sexist. I have tried to talk to you like an adult but you seem intent on ignoring this. I have also offered the first attempt at peace in the hope we can get back to the original subject. You also seem intent on ignoring this. And again, by listing a number of rules you seem to be trying to regain some control over this argument. That will not work.
If you control these posts i fully expect you will block me and claim a victory to the other viewers. No doubt calling me childish and out of control.
The bottom line is i will not back down on my opinion because because i know it to have a certain degree of truth. If you find it sexist then that is your mistake. I have explained to you. And i certainly hope you are not representative of the female leaders this world currently has.
I will also repeat my belief that there were other things in my original post that could have been deemed more sexist than suggesting many men would find womens wars trivial. The fact you have not picked up on this makes me question your ability to even construct a sensible debate.
“There is a comparison between the way those two men i mentioned were treated and the way you have treated me. They spoke up in defense of men and were labelled sexist for it. “
I did not label you sexist for speaking up in defence of men. I do that myself a lot. I labelled you sexist for making negative generalizations about the behavior of hypothetical female leaders based on nothing other than their gender.
“I have since explained to you it was not sexist…”
You have explained nothing, just stacked a whole load of guesses on top of each other mixed with more sexism.
“Even though you might not realise it i would guess that many of the things you think of about men are due to the way society in general treats them - the society you were raised and influenced in. That is why i believe you were sexist“
Exactly, you GUESS that and then you conclude that I’m sexist based on that guess. At least you admit it - though probably unwittingly. Here’s a lesson in basic logic: If you draw a conclusion based on a guess, then that conclusion is necessarily also just a guess.
“Again i said something that was in no way sexist but you simply did not like it and called me a sexist for it.”
You cannot know what I like or don’t like. That is not an argument but just another guess and hence, the same logical fallacy as above.
I’d like to challenge you to construct a direct line of logical reasoning that leads from those events you describe to the conclusion that anything I said was sexist. And if you can do that without relying on me being female or them being male as a condition, then I’ll be impressed. If you cannot do that then do yourself a favour and drop it - perhaps accompanied by an apology for the sake of common courtesy but I’m not getting my hopes up there.
“I will also use my guesses as i see fit. I cannot tell you facts about everything and would not presume i could do so. Indeed when researching for facts you often have to start with a guess.”
Starting with a guess is fine but if you want your opinion to have any credibility, you need to do a lot more than just guess.
“You dont make the rules in this life.”
True. If I did, you’d be studying elementary deductive logic now.
“I am a free person and i am free thinking.”
Not really. You are a slave to your preconceived opinions because you make guesses based on them and then don’t bother questioning or confirming those guesses. You are only a free thinking person to the extent to which you can change that attitude and learn to be sceptical towards opinions - your own in particular. Until then you’re just a follower of anyone whose rhetoric feels most comfortable at any given time.
“Being sarcastic and calling me "sweetie" does not elevate your position in this argument.”
I don’t need to “elevate my position” relative to you. Just by not personally attacking you, not using guesswork as arguments and not accusing you of emotional bias, I have already demonstrated a standard to which you have not even come close.
“Indeed i have come back with other comments from my original post, while you continue the argument over who is sexist.”
As long as you can’t show the integrity to come clean or at least logically refute what I said about your comment, then I’m not interested in talking to you about anything else. And you didn’t just deny that your comment was sexist. You responded with more sexism and piled one prejudiced guess on top of another.
“If you control these posts i fully expect you will block me and claim a victory to the other viewers. No doubt calling me childish and out of control.“
No need to call you childish or anything else. I don’t want to lower myself to your standard. Besides, your performance here speaks for itself.
Ok, davyboy,
I'll make one more attempt to sort this out. You say I'm wrong. Ok, if that is true then I'll be happy to correct my mistake. But, you must tell me exactly what I'm wrong about, why that is wrong and use nothing other than solid logic in your reasoning. No guesses, no "you said that because you're a woman" - style arguments and absolutely no more ad hominem attacks. Anything containing an ad hominem from now on will be blocked.
Like I said before Davyboy, ad homini will be blocked.
My offer to resolve this in a civilized manner stands but only if you can do it without personal attacks.
Toeknight 19 months ago
Beyond Top Female Politicians, Civil Servants and Company Directors there are also some awesom women writers that are not only taking the lead but are venturing where Presidents, Primeministers and politicians fear to go. I am reffering to such women as Ayaan Hirsi Ali who dares to put into print the reality of life for women in the Islamic world. I urge everyone to read not just her work but that of Jean Sasson's 'Princess' and 'Daughters of Arabia' and 'Desert Royal' These are hard hitting books indeed and no matter what we in the western world believe to be true of life in such nations the truth is far worse and my heartfelt respect goes out to these writers.