Discussions
Women are the only hope
Posted by TonyB • 9/30/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: feminine leaders
When it comes to the destruction of the world, I believe our only hope is more women become leaders utilizing the strength that the feminine possesses that the masculine doesn't. Most female leaders to-date have adopted a male style or masculine style of leadership which is outcome driven. The feminine in life is driven more by connection and relationships. Unless and until the world is run more by the feminine, we are pretty much doomed.
Do you agree?
User Comments
-
No. While I am certainly thankful that our pool of available talent has been doubled (Thank God, judging from the outcomes I'd say we need all the input we can get!) I believe that these male attributes that you disdain so much 1) have led to great success and the world generally becoming a better place for the last 500 years and 2) include a lot more substance, passion, inner strength, honor, commitment and, yes, friendship then you note. The mere fact that its values don't fit with cookie-cutter, Tuberware-filled, sugar-coated cookie Suburbia really is quite meaningless. Female leaders like Margaret Thatcher were very wise to adopt them, and I don't just mean for themselves and attaining power. In our society we tend to attack masculinity because those in power want to be the only people who have it - masculinity is much more constructive and useful then it is usually given credit for. The mere fact that societies dominated by femininity almost always get completely overrun and overtaken in every possible aspect may be a showcasing of this - femininity may even be a curse that men inflicted on women to make them weak.-
I am not debating the fact that masculinity hasn't led to advances in technology and there certainly is a vital role for men in this world. My point is that when it comes to peace and love and connection, men in general do not possess the same need for connection that women possess. We as men are driven by conquest and goals, which have their place. The feminine has to a large degree been repressed because of masculine strength and force. I am definitely not arguing that masculine is not important to the human survival as it is needed where we face specific challenges. Though our greatest strengths have proven to also be our greatest weaknesses as is evidenced by our reckless leadership of the world.
-
"My point is that when it comes to peace and love and connection, men in general do not possess the same need for connection that women possess"
That's not really the problem though. And no, men do need these things they are just expressed differently. The problem is not that we are unable to find "connections," the problem is that people are desperate, people are power hungry, and the best way to bring peace is usually through outpacing another countries military in sheer might until they just don't want a mess with you any more. Examples: Reagan in the 1980's, who prevented a nearly inevitable war with a vast arms buildup. Louis the XIV in France, who kept Germany away from France when it was expanding territorial with a vast army that never had to fire a shot.
By comparison, when Chamberlain (effeminate male) tried to "make peace, love and connection" with Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler, the result was to embolden Hitler and waste precious time that Hitler used to build up arms and prepare for war.
There are evil people in the world and they will use what energy they have to attain power. When you're dealing with such people, you need someone (male or female) with a sturdy pack of balls. Boys will be boys, and as Margaret Thatcher showed us, sometimes, so will girls. -
the problem here is not in the characteristics of individual leaders, but in the tendency of nations to select leaders with--for lack of a better descriptive term--Yang qualities, to the exclusion of the Yin. -
@Agit8r: As Chamberlain demonstrated, along with the non-war related results of societies that have tended towards Yin, that is probably a good thing.
-
@agit8r
the problem here is not in the characteristics of individual leaders, but in the tendency of nations to select leaders with--for lack of a better descriptive term--Yang qualities, to the exclusion of the Yin.
YES! -
@JJ
I don't know which chamberlain that you refer to, except that if he is relevant to such a point, he is obviously an idiot -
@Agit8r: I'm referring to the one who was right before Churchill. You know, the one who tried to make peace with Hitler?
-
-
Yes I do belive that. We as women rule. With out us the world would be in a total mess. I mean men dont pick up after them selves, like to spend money on sensless things (A billion dollar rocket for example), and they like to blow stuff up, and they leave the toliet seat up. It is up to us women to make you men behave and we need to have our say in the rule making.-
It is clear that polarity is important in life. There is a north pole and a south pole, Just like there is feminine and masculine. Both are important and needed. One would not exist without the other. I do not believe that it is necessary for one to "rule" over another. I simply believe that if we are to survive as a species it will be necessary going forward for the feminine to have a great say in world affairs and leadership.
-
-
I agree with your last comment TonyB - the yin and yang of females & males would do well to work in conjunction. The females natural ability to feel compassion, to serve, to mother would balance nicely in a world that at times seems set on destroying itself...but in saying that those very traits would not help when going to battle with those nations set on power for powers sake. Great discussion.-
Isn't it the masculine that causes nations to go to war for power's sake?
-
Interestingly, this already happens. Anyone who has ever worked with congress knows that Tony's "peace, love, and connections" are a very important part of getting things done in government.
-
@TonyB: Both masculine and feminine can desire power. That's simple selfishness. Masculine's just bolder.
-
@TonyB: Further, masculine's also what stifles non-national groups like Al Qaida from breaking law and going to war on their own accord. We treat it like it's a new thing, but groups like Al Qaida have existed since the Roman Empire at least and possibly before. They may even be older then countrys.
-
Sorry if I didn't explain it clearly - yes TonyB that is what I meant to convey and yes Jeremy I see your point there - America has also made efforts when Condalisa was doing her thing - maybe all that is needed is a little bit of thoughtprovoking pillow talk at home at night, a few female 'listened-to' whispers wouldn't be a bad thing
-
Strictly speaking, we're talking about masculinity and femininity. TonyB already made it clear that there are many masculine female leaders (Thatcher for example, Condoleeza [get it spelled right or she might bitch slap ya!] also) and I made it clear that there are sorry excuses for feminine male leaders (Chamberlain for example.)
-
I think the true feminine doesn't seek power. The feminine disguised as masculine leadership, eg. a Margaret Thatcher, or a Hilary Clinton, does. I agree that currently it is vital to have masculine power to oppose other masculine forces. However, within the countries where masculine power seek to conquer the world, it is the feminine essence that if utilized could assert more power of the current masculine leaders. This is true, even in organizations such as Al Qaida.
Feminine energy, I'd suggest, is more powerful than masculine. Proof of this is how often have you seen 10 women hanging out and a guy walks by and they all turnaround and go into a trance?
The challenge women have is that they do not recognize their strength. They have been domesticated to believe that the masculine is a more powerful energy. Historically it was necessary to be physically stronger to survive. The result was feminine domestication by the masculine. This is no longer the case. So the argument that something has been around thousands of years doesn't mean that it is the correct approach.
A lot of these thoughts come from David Deida's work about relationships. It occurred to me that this same masculine / feminine analysis ultimately could determine not only the fate of relationships, as discussed by Deida, but the fate of the human race. -
"Feminine energy, I'd suggest, is more powerful than masculine. Proof of this is how often have you seen 10 women hanging out and a guy walks by and they all turnaround and go into a trance?"
Societal norms. Men like being entranced - women probably do too but aren't supposed to.
As for your "feminine doesn't seek power," that kind of feminine, my friend, is slovenly, unassertive and indecisive. Thankfully, most women don't have it dominating them. Feminine does seek power, they often do it differently, but usually it is violent just violent of a different sort (societal vs. individual.) In other words, they use people as weapons. You see this in the South a lot.
-
-
When you see a woman seeking power she is usually in her masculine energy. The attraction of masculine energy to the feminine is not based on societal norms. No one had to teach you that. The pull of feminine energy is much more powerful than that of masculine. The feminine essence is that of life whereas the masculine is more of outcomes and death. There is plenty of evidence in life that supports this. The nature and purpose in which the masculine and the feminine engage in sex shows is one example. What do men typically want to do after sex? And women?
Place a true person with feminine energy in a leadership position and you are much more likely to see connections and relationships being strengthened rather than being destroyed. I'd suggest that Obama has much more feminine energy in him than George Bush. This is not to say that Obama doesn't also possess a ton of masculine energy.-
Sexuality is a biological process and the outcomes of it are based on biological roles. Men produce immense, almost cancerous, quantities of a single cell type for each sexual encounter, release it, must remake it. Of course they want to sleep - it's like catching cancer! Too much cell replication. This is an expression of organs, not the mind. This reality of what happens to them physically after sex also manifests itself in expectations, and thus, in movement and roles. Further, I would point out that sexual roles vary from couple to couple in all heterosexual relationships.
As for the draw of "masculine energy to feminine energy" may I point out to you that this may simply be hormonal attraction to the vessel of the feminine energy and not any especial energy on her part. For starters, if your theory was correct then straight men would be attracted to gay men AND women, not just women, and gay men would also be attracted to women. -
Interesting perspectives. Im going to krav maga to get rid of some energy. Will reply to your a bit later.
I would suggest though that men want to sleep because they have achieved their ultimate outcome. It's the same reason we want to score touch downs and then do nothing after we have achieved our goals. The simple fact that biology is involved does not disprove energy theory.
Gay men, for the most part do not have nearly as much feminine energy as a women who is in her feminine does. Many gay men and women have layers of masculine and feminine covering up their true sexual essence. There probably are cases where a masculine man is attracted to a truly feminine gay man and the same goes for a women who is truly a masculine essence when she meets a man who is truly at his core feminine essence. -
@TonyB: I don't think men are really more outcome oriented then women are. I think it's more just an issue of what the outcome is that they desire. In particular, I see things in the male essence you don't: adventurousness, risk-taking, honor, mischief, toughness, a desire to understand the intricacies of the universe, and an odd pardoxical mix of ego and humility. It is true though that our society, for its selfish ends, tries to stifle all but the outcomes oriented side of it. Those are all things I see in the male nature. In the female nature, I see a desire to nurture, timeliness, listening, peacemaking, conformity, lackeyness and a desire to get by day-to-day.
-
-
Hells to the yes!! -
Women the only hope? Certainly are for me. Without a woman I will ever experience TRUE intimacy. Woman is my only hope.
Seriously, I do believe in true equality. Not only in personal relationships but in all endeavors. Politics. Decision making. Power centers financially, socially, and militarily. Female. Male. Two versions of our species. Only when we equally merge are we truly One.-
I believe in equality but for different reasons. I believe that masculinity and power can and should go hand and hand, but I also believe that limiting your pool of available talent for no rational reason is supremely stupid on every possible level. Further, it is immoral and inethical to deny any individual their chance for any reason; you may think they haven't chance in hell of making it work, but if they think they can, you better shut up and let 'em or else.
As for "no true intimacy" that may be more the mental effect of sex.
-
-
@TonyB
A lot of these thoughts come from David Deida's work about relationships. It occurred to me that this same masculine / feminine analysis ultimately could determine not only the fate of relationships, as discussed by Deida, but the fate of the human race.
The pull of feminine energy is much more powerful than that of masculine. The feminine essence is that of life whereas the masculine is more of outcomes and death. There is plenty of evidence in life that supports this.
When you speak of David Deida's work I know whereof you speak as a cyber friend directed me to his books.
Question: Are women the only hope?
Answer: Yes and no, and I do understand where you are coming from.
IMO our hope for humanity ought to be placed in acknowledging and actualizing the need for balance within ourselves as individuals, so that we may begin to create balance in our relationships with others. Therein lies the answer for the human race.
Left brain: (masculine side) - assertive, logical, analytical, doing, controlling, aggressive, striving, projecting, hard, organizing, rushing, thrusting, always pushing us to survive, and has its origin in our minds.
Right brain: (feminine side) - creative, delicate, intuitive, nurturing, receptive, tender, surrendering, synthesizing, integrating, soft, feeling, and the part of us that "knows" without explanation and its rooted in the heart.
Our feminine energy helps us to "be" by softening the constant male energy "doingness" in our lives, which has become part of our misguided and relentless efforts to survive in the material world.
Only balance of the male-female polarities within each individual will allow us to relax into the knowingness of who we really are, and how we can best relate to others. And our world is out of balance it's dominated by masculine energy.
Rising feminine energy in the world will also bring with it the realization that what is important is not getting, doing and having but "being." Yes, the time has come for us to stop concentrating on the external, material world for our happiness and fulfillment for it cannot be found there.-
@TT - almost exactly what I was going to mention about the left brain and the right brain. Yes, for both male and female - the balance is crucial. -
Does the balance exist when it comes to decisions of the world?
-
Doesn't that balance exist already in today's society?
Wife wants Husband to be ruler of the world - or, he's not getting any tonight ..
-
-
Since women are fundamentally human beings, I doubt things would be any better if they were in power.-
nothing profound there
-
Hmmmm.....
-
i was kidding with my reply to you. You're probably right because with all the energy that comes from the feminine and the beauty, the other side of the feminine is total chaos....
-
-
The maternal not the feminine. Caring for and always thinking of children and home, and what is best for the family, in practical terms make women, as a whole, less incline to support war. However, as the role of women change, and women and more women work away from the home, and take up the traditional role of men, as hunters and gathers, more and more women will begin to think like hunters and gatherers, feeling the need to grab and to take, and to encroach.-
@df, that's exactly right. So while there the equality of women and the move away from the masculine, male chauvinistic society is positive, it also has caused many woman to not know how to connect to their true feminine essence. The result is a loss of polarity between men and women and less passion in relationships.
-
-
@ TonyB- it exists only in a small scattered fashion,but if we can start in our education system to promote this balance, then we'll see positive results in the next generation. For this generation, learning and utilizing our energies optimally - my latest post sheds some light on this, will be a step in the right direction. Good night!
-
@agapelife, let's hope so.
-
-
I disagree...Although more than likely the next puppet elected president of the U.S.A(2016)will be a woman...-
gerry, what do you disagree with? aren't president's supposed to be puppets of the people?
-
I disagree that our only hope is having female leaders...
People should be judged by the content of their character not by their gender,race or sexuality...But that does not mean women would make better leaders than men...
There is no evidence to support your theory...Can you even name one woman that would be a better leader than Obama ? -
My sister
-
@Both of you: Oddly enough, I actually find myself agreeing with TonyB here!
-
-
We do need more woman leaders. I personally think a healthy mix is what we need. -
If women ruled the world would we all have to pee sitting down?-
Oh my... The HORROR!!! -
I already pee sitting down...I was just curious as to the rest.
-
I see...
Oh my... THE HORRRRRRROOORRRR!!!
-
-
I think that women already rule, everywhere. If a man has a female in his life, whether a mother, a girlfriend, wife or even daughter, that female still tell the man what to do and how to, watches out so the man doesn't ruin anything, embarrass the family and so on.-
my woman always tries to make sure I don't get too drunk
-
-
We see that men make all the rules: that a leader should be decisive, strong, etc. So even if there is a female leader she has to be masculine
In fact due to the system in place the leader's individuality could often take a back seat, or only a certain class of persons will get elected - and this class may not necessarily be the best
Ideally all citizens of the world would manage themselves-
Very Tolstoyan. You read much Tolstoy? "War and Peace" especially comes to mind.
-
Very flattering of you sir
-
*Shoots shotgun.* Don't call me a flatterer!
-
-
Yea, ya hit the nail on the head tonyb HOLLY for PREZ!-
Well you certainly are much smarter than Sarah Palin...Who would you pick to be your vice-president ?
-
Gerry for VP
-
-
Well DUHH you of coarse
-
I wonder how Palin spells
-
-
Personally I think you are right, Tony! We need more of a balance, everything else is balanced, so why shouldn't the leadership be too?
I feel the only reason why women are taking on more masculine traits is because they are being forced to, in order to get her rightful place as co-leader. Notice I didn't say top leadership, but side by side... equal billing, equal pay, equal say... etc... with men..
If it were as easy for a women to get a leadership position as it is for men, then I think we would see more of the feminine side in women leaders. They wouldn't be forced to become something they are not, in order to be accepted as an intelligent person who is capable of making incredibly important decisions.
I really think things would change, some for the better, some not, but at least it would eventually even itself out instead of leaning heavily to one side. lol!-
That's how I see it too. Women are forced to take on the masculine ways to get into leadership positions. Once more women become leaders the most effective thing they can do is use their true feminine nature in these roles and not buy into the way men have always led corporations and the world.
-
-
Does make sense.
-
No, a good leader is a good leader regardless of gender.-
The context depends on the type of leadership necessary. So depending on the situation a true feminine leadership style would be more effective than a masculine one. So if we want to destroy another country, a more masculine style of leadership is necessary. If we want to connect with others, and establish long term, solid relationships, a feminine leadership style will likely be more effective.
-
-
It's known in ancient times women were priests until men put a stop to that. People used to worship female goddesses. All the world became male dominated and has been downhill since. I guess it's time to get back to basics! -
Women commit the same exact crimes as men do though. You have some crazy male leaders in this world, but that is because almost all the leaders are men. So if you had all women leaders, you would have a few crazy women leading. -
Lets simplify this debate. Both Men and Women are human - they both make mistakes. Inteligent Men and Women exist, but unfortunatly dumb people are a majority in this World. I have hope in any Man or Woman who is able to lead by example and has the courage to say and do what others won't. -
Tru that
-
If you're talking about peace in the world, I don't think it'll ever happen. It's nice to have hopes and ideals and optimism-that's what keeps us going. But if every nation on earth were governed by women I think the morning headlines would be just the same.
-
I disagree. If every nation in the world was governed by women we'd probably have problems dealing with certain challenges though there wouldn't be as many wars. Peace would be a much more likely outcome of a world governed with feminine energy.
-
@TonyB: No, because the weaker countries become militarily, the more the opportunity for "outside leadership" so to speak, like Al Qaida, GROWS. Groups like Al Qaida exist when the majority of nations have no real ability to defend themselves, like now or in Asia in the early 1800's when piracy off the coast of China (ironically in the hands of a masculine female leader, Ching Shih) reached its height and virtually all Asian navies were non-existent.
Beyond this, considering the non-war related problems we have - environmental destruction, economic depravity, urban decay, cultural decay - I'd say war is the least of our worries.
-
-
I suspect that women are much more cut-throat then you would give us credit for.
Whereas, when men go to battle, when it's over, it's over.
When women go to battle, when it's over, it's only a break to gear up for total annihilation of the enemy using every means possible, including psychological and emotional manipulation.-
Stillthinking, many women have adopted a layer of masculine in order to survive in a masculine dominated society. The feminine has a wild, unbounded energy to it, which could as you say lead to mass annihilation when its needs are not met. I suppose in the current world environment, or cold war environment, putting a woman in charge may have led to someone pushing the button.
-
Oh dear, I don't think you're acquainted with the Queen Bee syndrome that afflicts so many women in the workplace. It's not about affecting a veneer of masculinity, as much as it is taking advantage of biological instinct to organize women into a hierarchy. Queen Bees are masters at emotional and political manipulation.
Sarah Palin is actually a primo example of a Queen Bee in action. Manipulative, attractive, supremely narcissistic, rewarding to followers and vindictive towards detractors.
The idea of a world run by Sarah Palins makes me cringe. -
i think perhaps that it would be better to say that world leaders ought to exhibit the best virtues that we associate with either gender. Unfortunately it seems that virtue itself is viewed as a sign of weakness.
-
very true
-
@Agit8r: Agreed. I don't think masculine honor, dignity and internal strength would be any less effective in promoting peace and better relations. In fact, I think it would be more so.
-
-
Tony, I think you may be conflating a world governed by women and a world governed by 'feminine energy'.
I wonder: who would this woman (or women) be who could or should rule?
I think a thoughtful nature, discernment, and ability to foster compromise are just as important as the ability to make difficult choices. The best leaders are, IMO, able to be circumspect AND be decisive.-
the ability to be decisive is not a feminine trait
-
*groans*
And seeing the big picture is not a masculine trait. -
True. Most women tend to take little things and make them huge and men tend to take huge things and minimize them.
"an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind..."
Mahatma Ghandi -
Wow... I'm sure glad we're not working in stereotypes or anything here
(cough)
(cough)
-
equal billing stereotypes
-
Oh, I know. But yipes...
-
Dogs lick themselves.
-
Wow, Tony... you got my point, then.
which is... that a good leader needs a balance of abilities and that no *actual* man or woman possesses the traits you're assigning to the terms 'masculine' and 'feminine'.
Our best bet for present and future leadership is to elect leaders who have the balance right -- thus circumspect AND decisive -- regardless of anatomical differences. -
@stillthinking
ick. -
@midwestmom
that a good leader needs a balance of abilities and that no *actual* man or woman possesses the traits you're assigning to the terms 'masculine' and 'feminine'.
Our best bet for present and future leadership is to elect leaders who have the balance right -- thus circumspect AND decisive -- regardless of anatomical differences.
Yes. This is what I stated above in this thread and what agapelife expanded on.
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/women-are-the-only-hope#comment_1142051
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/women-are-the-only-hope#comment_1142181 -
Continued
@midwestmom
that a good leader needs a balance of abilities and that no *actual* man or woman possesses the traits you're assigning to the terms 'masculine' and 'feminine'.
Our best bet for present and future leadership is to elect leaders who have the balance right -- thus circumspect AND decisive -- regardless of anatomical differences.
When we acknowledge feminine energy and encourage the flow we can manifest more co-operative and collaborative mindsets by electing politicians who are balanced individuals, who are mindful that leadership is a function. and not a title or independent role. This in turn leads to quite a different approach to decision making. Effective leadership creates more balanced decision making processes and more outcomes that more people can feel they identify with and embrace.
Equity: Excess masculine energy in the community building process creates competitiveness and conflict. Excess feminine energy creates the Queen bee" manipulative syndrome that stillthinking has pointed to.
However, when feminine energy and masculine energy are brought into balance the result is: “Isn’t it amazing how much work can get done when people don’t care who gets the credit?”
Bringing the two energies into balance allows us to acknowledge the value of individuals freely bringing different resources, skills and contributions to any community building process, without the expectation of becoming "a winner, who has the best ideas". In the situation where balance prevails a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from, and once presented and modified and embraced it becomes the group's joint idea. In that kind of process each individual can be seen as valuable and integral member who is contributing to the leadership function to enable accomplishing the overall objective, which is serving the whole community more effectively.
Learning Together: Rather than being divisive, when feminine energy flows and balances masculine energy in politics or in any community decision making model we can recognize the different tools, philosophies and perspectives that become sources of learning and growth and honor them. It's only when cooperative attitudes and collaborative processes replace both varieties of energy (masculine and feminine) and their competitive aspects that the truly effective leadership by the people, for the people, and of the people can be achieved.
-
-
Dominated by woman? In this early morning, I'm not sure how to respond. I do think that women are driven more by their emotions and can be less predictable as a result. I personally, do not trust women much as I find most to be manipulative, vindictive, overly controlling etc. Not to say that men are angels (far from it), they have (the male budcakes that I've had) usually been more straightforward and honest while the women I am familiar with, love to dance around and play mind games.
I'll just say a good ol' balance would be nice. Or better yet let's just get an incredibly cute floppy-eared rabbit up there. No one can resist making peace with a cute rabbit.-
"the women I am familiar with, love to dance around and play mind games"
We are talking about politicians here so that kinda works. -
@mike
Whateverrr -
@ekim, that's cause they want you to make a decision.
-
@ekim: Therefore suggesting that our politicians are already very feminine.
-
-
tony, timethief-- I think yall are on to something with the masculine/feminine energies thing and it does make sense. It's important to realize that merely electing a few women makes little difference. (trying in vain to think of anything 'feminine' in Margaret Thatcher's prime ministership, for example)-
My federal MP is a female. The head of the Island Trust is female and the majority of those elected to the Trust are likewise female. All three of my locally elected officials are females (Trustees and Regional Director). We have been electing balanced females to office for over 20 years where I live. So what's taking the rest of you so long?
Maybe what you need a female to be your campaign manager and train your troops for you. If so, then that would be me, when evidencing my masculine side. ... lol
-
-
What town in canada are you from again?
-
ya which town full of women only?
-
No I don't agree at all. I believe that men were made to be leaders of the country, women may lead the children at home and be successful in their careers, but I have a conservative stand when it comes to politics. I still believe that men can lead better.-
i agree with you -
At least in terms of attributes. Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandhi, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Isabella I, and Golda Meir all proved that masculine women can be great leaders. Even Evita Peron was really a lot more masculine in character then she was stereotype. Likewise, I would be very surprised if John Lennon and George Harrison, or any man who carries around a sunflower and cries all day, became effective leaders of countries.
-
-
Enlightment!! -
UK leadership hasn't had a very good experience with women. The only female Prime Minister to date EVER was Margaret Thatcher - not the best period in our history to say the least.
For that reason I don't think we'll be seeing another female PM for a while yet. But should there be? Of course there should! Just maybe one from Labour this time...-
What are you talking about? Thatcher saved your hiney! Your country was cascaded towards economic oblivion, with a horrifying combination of rising housing costs and slumping employment (also seen recently in Southern California), had huge deficits, and was dearming itself to the point of being a lapdog to NATO. She changed course on much of this, won the Falklands, and was instrumental in keeping Europe together and composed at the fiery end of the Cold War.
-
the end of the cold war was "fiery"?
-
Fiery in the comparative sense. The chance of nuclear war et cetera greatly increased right at the end. As the old Asian saying goes, "a wounded tiger is often the most dangerous."
-
so... how did she do that?
-
By rebuilding the English Navy and being a complete dick.
Boys will be boys, and so will Margaret Thatcher....
In addition, she kicked some common sense on the English political establishment with regards to economics. -
Saying the Margaret Thatcher was a good leader is ridiculous, the women was abhorrent. -
she acted like a man
-
@crpitt: If she was such a horrible leader, how come she had such profound impact? Say what you will about what that impact was, but she had it.
-
Having a profound impact doesn't mean something is good, an asteroid would also have a profound impact.
-
@crpitt: The "good" here refers to ability. The "good" in terms of what that impact is would be a much longer discussion that is in no way, shape or form relevant to this thread. So I'm posting a link:
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/healthcare-cheaper-and-better
Look for NT77's comment and my response. It's a long dead thread, so if you want to respond as well feel free to - dead threads make great organ donors!
-
-
I grabbing my lunch and I am going to read every word of this discussion. It might win my discussion award of the year. Tony is my new hero. Ahhhh -
Tony,I agree with you
-
I thought Obi-Wan was the only hope. -
Um... I don't think being a leader has anything to do with gender. There are many different styles of leadership. I think you are oversimplifying things.-
Um...I think saying that there are many different types of leadership styles is overgeneralizing things.
-
Okay, maybe generalization was the wrong term. I was trying to take a shortcut, but let's take the long route and deconstruct your fallacious argument:
"When it comes to the destruction of the world, I believe our only hope is more women become leaders utilizing the strength that the feminine possesses that the masculine doesn't." So your assumption is that these certain strengths that are "feminine" are ones that men cannot exhibit. Well, that's pretty much false, as we know that both men and women can exhibit any sort of trait, "feminine" or "masculine". I doubt you will find any modern evidence in your favor on this.
"Most female leaders to-date have adopted a male style or masculine style of leadership which is outcome driven." So with this statement you sort of prove your previous statement wrong by stating that women have adopted, and are capable of exhibiting, masculine traits, that is of course unless you're establishing that women can exhibit masculine behavior, but men cannot exhibit feminine behavior, which we know is false. I actually have more to say on this but I think I'll save it for the end.
"The feminine in life is driven more by connection and relationships. Unless and until the world is run more by the feminine, we are pretty much doomed." I'm amazed that never once in your argument do you acknowledge men exhibiting "feminine" leadership traits, nor do you acknowledge that men can exhibit "feminine" traits at all. My analysis is that you seriously believe that only women are capable of exhibiting "feminine" leadership style. If you were to say that leaders, in general, should adopt a more feminine style of leadership, that would be one thing, but you flat out state that more women should be leaders because only women can adopt a feminine style of leadership. Simply amazing.
-
-
Are we still arguing about this?!?!
-
Women are just people, meaning some are good and some are not so good, just like men.
-
Ive tried to make that point... but it seems that some women dont understand... LOL (I am just kidding... dont shoot)
-
Im really referring not as much to whether someone is a man or a woman and more to feminine and masculine energy, of which we each of both.
-
If there was an effeminate ruler, I would just go in, mess up their drapes, and overthrow them
-
Don't really know what you mean by "energy," Tony, but I can't subscribe to positive or negative stereotypes of this kind, whether you're talking about biology (sex: male/female) or culture (gender: masculinity/femininity).
-
LOL... Drop some wine on the couch and leave the toilet seat up... and thus the revolution began!
-
No single trait has been found which separates leaders from non-leaders. In patriarchal societies women were rendered powerless and set outside the decision making processes as it was assumed only mach men had what it took to be leaders. The idea of born-leaders manifesting only masculine energy has become outdated. Leadership is a function and is most effective when it's a shared function, rather than being vested in an individual. The best leaders are able to balance masculine energy and feminine energy that we are all possessed of, regardless of our gender.
-
And then not call them back when I said I would!
-
One of the most important talents any member of a leadership team needs is empathy; that is, an appreciation for and understanding of others' needs. (Empathy includes both the ability to uncover needs and sensitivity to those needs.)
The empathic leader is one with the group, he/she is a ream player, and not an individual above the group ruling and reigning over it, and seeing that his/her will be done. He/she is openly honest and helpful; he/she is willing to listen to all, recognizing a good idea is a good idea whether or not it is brought forward by a non-leader. He/she is willing to identify problems by looking at situations through the eyes of others as well as through his/her own eyes, and has at his/her disposal a variety of problem-solving tools, and options provided by the group.
Some other behaviors that indicate positive qualities of a balanced masculine/feminine shared leadership model are enthusiasm, alertness, integrated character, deliberate will control, risk-taking, absence of suspicious anxiety, and competitiveness, willingness to collaborate and cooperate, and a strong desire for consensual agreement. -
@TT: Empathy is not a feminine attribute. Sympathy is, but empathy is not. Sympathy is when you reassure someone or comfort them through the desire to distribute their hurt on to yourself, while Empathy is feeling and seeing their emotions with them and responding.
Also, honesty, trustmaking, and vision are all important leadership attributes that are masculine, as are bravery and confidence.
"he/she is a ream player, and not an individual above the group ruling and reigning over it"
False dilemma. You can also be an individual who is above the group but has personal connection and loyalty with the other individuals at the individual level, all united together not by a shared group but a shared goal. You assume that such things can only exist at the collective, when in point of fact they can also exist man-to-man, and are sometimes more effective that way as it inspires more trust, honesty, and open-mindedness.
-
-
The main point here is not wheather a leader is a women or a man... I don't care about that. My question is: Can (s)he lead?!?!
-
And what does leading mean to you? IMO elect far to many bosses when what we actually need is leaders.
Read on and see what I mean ...
A boss (masculine energy) drives group members; a leader (feminine energy) coaches them.
A boss (masculine energy) depends upon authority; a leader (feminine energy) on good will.
A boss (masculine energy) inspires fear and obedience; a leader (feminine energy) inspires enthusiasm and participation.
A boss (masculine energy) says "I"; a leader (feminine energy) says "we."
A boss (masculine energy) assigns the task, a leader (feminine energy) sets the pace.
A boss (masculine energy) says, "Get there on time"; a leader (feminine energy) says "Let's gets there ahead of time".
A boss (masculine energy) assigns blame for the breakdown; a leader (feminine energy) fixes the breakdown.
A boss (masculine energy) knows how it is done; a leader (feminine energy) shows how.
A boss (masculine energy) makes work a drudgery; a leader (feminine energy) makes it a pleasure.
A boss (masculine energy) says, "Go"; a leader (feminine energy) says, "Let's go."
When we acknowledge feminine energy and encourage the flow we can manifest more co-operative and collaborative mindsets by electing politicians, who are balanced individuals, who are mindful that leadership is a function, and not a title or independent role. This in turn leads to quite a different approach to decision making. When we elect leaders, instead of "bosses" the result will be effective leadership which creates more balanced decision making processes, and more satisfying outcomes that more people can feel they identify with and embrace. -
But but... who will make our sandwiches? feminine energy makes sandwiches taste much better.
-
@TT: Right now you're comparing female leaders to male bosses, so I'm modifying it to compare apples to apples.
First, leaders:
A LEADER (masculine energy) drives group members TO DEVELOP THEMSELVES INDEPENDENTLY AND BE BRAVE AND GRATEFUL; a leader (feminine energy) COACHES THEM AS A MOTHER. (Sorry to resort to stereotypes, but mother vs. football coach)
A LEADER (masculine energy) depends upon HONOR; a leader (feminine energy) on COMPASSION.
A LEADER (masculine energy) inspires ATTACHMENT AND STORGE (the kind of love associated with country or community or common purpose); a leader (feminine energy) inspires enthusiasm AND PHILOS (the kind of love associated with friendship.)
A LEADER (masculine energy) says "YOU"; a leader (feminine energy) says "we."
A LEADER (masculine energy) ASSIGNS DUTY, a leader (feminine energy) sets the pace.
A LEADER (masculine energy) says, "BE WORTH SOMETHING"; a leader (feminine energy) says "Let's gets there ahead of time".
A LEADER (masculine energy) TAKES THE blame for the breakdown; a leader (feminine energy) fixes the breakdown.
A LEADER (masculine energy) SHOWS WHY AND TRUSTS YOU; a leader (feminine energy) shows how.
A LEADER (masculine energy) makes work PROUD AND DIGNIFIED; a leader (feminine energy) makes it a pleasure.
A LEADER (masculine energy) says, "Go"; a leader (feminine energy) says, "Let's go." (This one's the same)
And for bosses:
A boss (masculine energy) drives group members with stick and carrot; a BOSS (feminine energy) MANIPULATES them.
A boss (masculine energy) depends upon authority; a BOSS (feminine energy) on a web of connections.
A boss (masculine energy) inspires fear and obedience; a BOSS (feminine energy) inspires emotional games and peer pressure.
A boss (masculine energy) says "I"; a BOSS (feminine energy) says "we've come to a conclusion about you."
A boss (masculine energy) assigns the task, a BOSS (feminine energy) entangles you in a web of cruelty and lies.
A boss (masculine energy) says, "Get there on time"; BOSS (feminine energy) says "You're worthless, so don't give me a reason to feed you to the meatshredder".
A boss (masculine energy) assigns blame for the breakdown; a BOSS (feminine energy) tears people apart in public view, but in such a way that they can't stop it.
A boss (masculine energy) knows how it is done; a BOSS (feminine energy) knows how to get the nerdy kid to do her homework.
A boss (masculine energy) makes work a drudgery; a BOSS (feminine energy) makes the workplace a den of liars and thieves. (lawful evil vs. chaotic evil)
A boss (masculine energy) says, "Go"; a BOSS (feminine energy) says, "Let's go." (This stays the same) -
I believe that "Thimethief" is right on the money with her example here.
Jeremy’s revised example must have been re-written during a commercial break during his football game is what I am guessing. -
I wonder JJ, do you consider Democracy to be masculine or feminine?
-
@agit8r: Depends on the ideals of the democracy. Democracy, by our modern definition, can be nearly anything where a constitution divides power and allows for elections, and thus really can't be said to be emotional or human in any fashion. It's a piece of paper.
@AngieA: The fact that she uses "Leader" for one and "Boss" for another in my mind completely discredits her. There are women who can't lead and there are men who can. I've seen the masculine type leaders, they're a dying breed in a country that has lost all honor and is quickly becoming a den of thieves but you do occasionally find them still. I used the football stereotype because it illustrates the idea, and apologized for it in-line. -
haha! no, silly. I meant REAL (lower-case "r") republican government.
-
@Agit8r: Oh that kind of democracy. Thought about it and it still wouldn't be either. Only the leaders and people swaying it could be masculine or feminine.
-
our founding fathers don't strike me as having a great deal of machismo...
-
also the notion of free markets and trade seems very Tend-and-Befriend...
-
@Agit8r: Northerners have no gender. Texas, on the other hand, had tons of machismo, and they were democratic.
-
@freemarket: Or personal honor and not stealing from people.
-
"freemarket: Or personal honor and not stealing from people"
that actually only works in the micro-economy.
I was addressing how these concepts were classically forwarded as being preventative of war. -
@agit8r: The macro can be built from micro out, and then modified slightly for externalities.
Also, to respond to the previous version of your post, personal honor is NOT a feminine attribute. If you don't believe me, just look at how girls settle their fights.
@WAR EDIT: Yes, that particular argument is feminine, although other defenses of free trade (including the economic and moral/ethical defenses) would not be. -
there is no honor or lack of stealing in the macroeconomy. it is all about arbitraging one persons property for anothers gain.
-
"honor" is not a gender-based attribute.
-
@Agit8r. macroeconomy: To a point but you can seek to limit it, especially through a central bank. But I what I mean about micro building macro is that most of an economy can be built at the smallest level, and then macroeconomics can be used to fix the small but crucial and inevitable flaws.
-
@Agit8r: "Honor is not a gender-based attribute." I disagree. The things that compose honor - justice, honesty, loyalty, purpose and principle - can stem from a justice orientation (justice and honesty) and male introspection (purpose and principle). Loyalty in the general sense less so, but in the particular sense that it applies to honor it would be the more masculine side of it.
-
I'm talking about our modern economy of stock-jobbers and their accomplices. There is no honor in our macro-economy. It is a giant ponzi-scheme.
-
@agit8r: Now now now, shareholders are people too!
-
I have to wonder if your notions of "honor" and "justice" are based in a judeo-christian tradition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedaka -
I've looked at turn the other cheek a lot, and while elsewhere in the bible violence is hardly encouraged (the crucifiction itself is a supreme act of nonviolence), turn the other cheek actually refers to something different.
For starters, slapping somebody in the face is in no meaningful way an act of physical violence. No one breaks a bone or succombs to poor health as a result of being slapped in the face, it's more the body language equivalent of a truly horrific disrespect or insult. The point of "turning the other cheek" is not attempting to busy body everybody in to not offending you anymore, or for that matter going too far with responses to personal insults.
As for Tzedakah, that's not really an issue of honor at all. It's an issue of religious obligation. Some will believe that the money never belonged to you at all, but my guess is the majority really don't think on those terms and the minority who "do" probably thought about it the majority's way first. Honor doesn't really appear much in the Bible until the New Testament - one of the main changes actually - and the dialogue between St. Paul and Ananias (Acts 5) would seem to neutralize much of the Jewish teaching on Tzedakah as commandment in the traditional sense, which I don't remember being mentioned anywhere in Deuteronomy or Leviticus anyways. Sort of like mastrubation bans, its one of those weird things that was never actually in the Bible but people assumed it was so in our own minds it got added in the margins. -
"mastrubation bans"
so that's the problem -
"Sort of like mastrubation bans, its one of those weird things that was never actually in the Bible but people assumed it was so in our own minds it got added in the margins."
Nice try.
-
-
I don't agree on that. The president of my country is a woman and so far she has zero credibility and is even worse in terms of corruption than her male counterparts. I think women are as capable as guys on doing great things compared to guys and also the wrong things. The sex of a person has nothing to do with their ability to make good decisions. -
totaly true
-
Yes, Women are the only hope. Woman created man. Show me a man who can create a woman. The goddess rules! Hail Aradia!-
Look at Steven Hawking. The man can't even talk without a computer keyboard and yet he's the greatest living physicist. Point is, biology is a bunch of random poop that has chemical reactions that you did not design and barely influence. It tells you nothing, and none of your body parts are a credit to you one way or the other.
-
-
Yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!!
I love your refreshing opinion ~ and coming from a man too, that's really great!
Yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!!! -
Hey... lets all just agree to disagree.
-
Getting back to Tony's original premise, it is true that women are more apt to seek peaceful resolutions. Women are good at multi-tasking, and let's not forget that old canard, feminine intuition. There is some truth to that. Men are driven by the physical; women are driven by the psychological. A woman's perceptions should not be minimized. We can look at a situation like a Rubiks cube and put the pieces in order. But it is perception that is key to feminine problem-solving. We see what is beneath much more so than men. Women get certain queues from some internal wiring that gives us quick takes on what a person is really saying or doing. Then we know how to approach a situation and bring forth a resolution that appears to please all, but gets to the essence of the problem.-
There's some truth to that, but often times men are better at decentralizing and atomizing the situation so that Person A and Person B can do their jobs best without each other. This more invisible hand or divide and conquer approach often does a lot to prevent emotional type problems form arising to begin with and grants a higher degree of responsibility, and also, freedom. Then, through a straightforward introspection, principle, and vision they inspire a shared goal, and allow separate individuals to pursue it, collaborating through individual agreement as separate parties rather then a single overarching, almost totalitarian group.
Men tend to be more straightforward, keeping everything in the open to minimize the need for such perception and building relationships at a 1 by 1 level.
I'm not sure men are really more driven by the physical, but they do tend to mix and cloud things less. They tend to adhere to almost the old Orthodox Jewish tradition of having a different plate for every kind of food. And men are more driven internally. That's why honor is more of a male trait, and embarrasment more of a female trait. They can have extremely strong relationships, though I think today American society has given man a bad bad deal in terms of social institutions, but these relationships are built on a different set of assumptions and a different kind of connectedness. Think about your grandfathers and how they would associate at the bar. Think about how neighborhoods used to run. Only trouble is, in today's world you have to have a clique to have anyone in your life because no one opens up to anyone anymore, and societal institutions of every kind are dead, the result of this being that men usually either a) effeminize themselves to create a group mentality or b) do without people. I don't know why this has happened, but I suspect, like most things, it goes back to the 1950's.
I guess it's a little bit like (sorry to be nerdy, this is the best analogy I can think of) ionic bonds versus covalent bonds in chemistry. In a covalent bond, electrons are shared between two atoms while in an ionic bond one atom gains one too many electrons and another loses to one too few. Ironically, ionic bonds are actually stronger and remains solid at much higher temperatures.
-
-
Masculine energy? Feminine energy? Pretty vague terms. I have to agree with TSR that this discussion is a masterwork of stereotypes.
-
I think before we could have this discussion, we'd have to first discuss what masculine and feminine energy are.
-
-
Quote from Anais Nin: "We see things not as they are, but as we are. Because it is the 'I' behind the 'eye' that does the seeing."
-
It seems to me like there's too much to work with here to really get down to the truth. How do you know the differences come from gender?
But beyond that, I do believe that "men are more focused on the physical" is an illusion.
-
-
That is the essence of the premise here, is it not? We could go to the hackneyed, 'nature vs nurture' but it would not suffice. I would like to believe that men being focused on the physical is an "illusion" but history and my life experience as a woman would counter that.
-
That is true. I'll stop annoying you now.
-
-
You are challenging, not annoying, and that makes for thought-provoking discussion.
-
Glad to hear. You just sounded a little bit angry earlier.
-
-
Not at all. I like someone who provides an intellectual challenge, and you certainly do that. I love depth of dialogue in which people can disagree without being disagreeable. Believe me, reading you is a learning experience. The hour is late, though, so I'm signing off.
Cheers!
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
