Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "NYT Headline “Did Women Ruin the Workplace?”"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Yes. Is there actually any argument for the opposite?[/quote] If your brain just goes to women and not a million other factors that have changed over time, that's a you problem. [/quote] As for the workplace, are any of them really better from having HR departments or other such areas birthed by feminism?[/quote] Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.[/quote] because women find it offensive [/quote] Cry harder [/quote] You're missing the point. The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth simply because the need for group agreement (aand agreeableness as a female trait) doesn't allow for such conflict. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate? Since women are now the majority in the college system, the majority of MD and JD recent graduates, those fields will all soon be female dominated. As women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic. As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this. [/quote] Your evidence to support all of this mental wanking is…a reality TV show? I can come up with an equally stupid and delusional thesis: “Male dominated politics aren’t compatible with civilization because boys like to make things go boom and kill everyone in wars. When men are in charge, you get slavery and pollution and rape and species extinctions and a complete breakdown of the social order. Lord of the Flies proves this.”[/quote] You ignored the rest of the post. The contention is if the male heirarchical system works better than the female flatter consensus based system. In other words the male system doesn't care about offending others which means more risks can be taken, while the female system cares more about consenus and fairness, and limits ideas that are hurtful/risky such that truths can't be talked about because Jan might feel bad. Likewise the male system allows for heirarchies to be quickly set with less back stabbing such that the focus is on getting the job done, while the female system focuses on either everyone having an equal turn, or backstabbing one's enemies such that the result is not the primary focus. If you want I can pull meta studies on male vs female dominance heirachies and group effects, but I would imagine anyone who has worked in both male dominated and female dominated groups can notice the difference. but that wouldnt be "fair" would it.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics