"Female supremacist"? That's way off beam guys. I love and admire men. I love their company and enjoy their conversation as much as that of women. So much of the good stuff in this world is being driven by men.

I won’t back down from my argument that the values I've outlined as critical in developing a more sustainable and fairer world are values that are inherently more common in females than in males. Of course there are many people from both genders exhibiting mixes of all these values. And I also realise it's far too black-and-white to state that some values are good and some are bad. Competition for example can be useful, it can drive people to achieve more than they might otherwise, and the cooperative approach on the other hand can be slow and cumbersome.

Anyone who spends a lot of time with large groups of young children as I do will relate in some degree to this basic premise. They'll observe boys from an early age vying to claim the best truck or digger. In lower primary they'll spend a lot of time dealing with boys who've been hit or punched by other boys. And in later primary they'll see boys organizing their play almost entirely around the proving of their individual physical prowess.

Young girls are much more likely to play in a cooperative situation. They'll play 'doctors and nurses', set up 'shops', look after 'the babies' and so on. Of course conflict arises but they tend to talk it through. Girls can be cruel as was alluded to earlier and can exclude others from the group just as readily as boys. But they rarely involve themselves in physical fighting. They will usually be the first too to come to the aid of a child who is hurt or upset.

It's far more interesting and far more constructive when you debate the issues and challenge our thinking (as you and Yabby and others for the most part have been doing) than when you resort to labelling and cheap shots as you have in this instance.

Bronwyn,

you've convinced me, and explained your position very well. Though I'm sure if a male suggested women just didn't have enough natural aggression and leadership for some task I would be considered sexist. Your tone in your last post did come off as superior, but it was a bit much to call you a female supremacist.

Vanilla,

I also still wonder how yourself and Bronwyn reconcile your position of attributing the state of society and culture as men's responsibility, in this supposedly man's world, yet deem it offensive to believe women have been standing on the sidelines and criticizing. Note I did say it is fair enough to counter that they haven't had the opportunity to have an input.

So which is it?

a) Women bare just as much responsibility as men for society and culture, hence this man's world business is crap and women aren't the holier than though creatures they are made out to be

b) Women have no responsibility, as it's a man's world, but any argument that they would have done it better is an exercise in being the masters of hindsight, armchair expert, and naive idealists.

Billie,

'A woman pays far more for an equivalent haircut than man, often double or triple.'

That's because men refuse to pay any more than about $20. Women could do that too. For god's sake I know of a few girls who even leave a tip after their $80 trim!

Whitty: “I also still wonder how yourself and Bronwyn reconcile your position of attributing the state of society and culture as men's responsibility…”
What the...? Ok, you need to help me out. I don’t believe the “state of society and culture [is] men’s responsibility”. I don’t even believe one gender *can* be responsible for a culture — including their own, which necessarily sits in both harmony and opposition to the other. I’ve reread my posts TWICE and *honestly* have no idea why you believe I hold this position.

Quote me, and I’ll endeavour to explain what I actually meant.

I’m totally depressed by my apparent inability to articulate what I mean.

Ok. Onwards.

“… yet deem it offensive to believe women have been standing on the sidelines and criticizing.”
For a start, you’ve never offended me. I may disagree and get bolshie, sure, but offended? No.

Your original quote was: “It's pretty easy for these women standing on the sidelines (through lack of oportunity or not) to be untainted by humankinds path thus far, while reaping the rewards in standard of living.”
Firstly, who are "these women sitting on the sidelines”? Contemporary ladykind, I hope we all agree, is in the main arena. You could conceivably say that, pre-suffarage, women sat on the sidelines and voice strong opinions. (They were the suffragettes, after all — they did have stuff to complain about.) But if you mean women these days, I reject your premise. Prove it.

Secondly, women contribute to the standard of living, both by generating wealth and by supporting men who generate wealth. Both men and women reap the resultant rewards.

Both a. and b. are inadequate explanations.

“That's because men refuse to pay any more than about $20. Women could do that too.”

The commerce that’s grown around the adornment of women in every culture since the Greeks is kinda complex. Its roots are both deeply biological and deeply commercial — through property and marriage markets — and if you extracted beauty from business the economy would collapse. I admire your ambition, but it’s bigger than haircuts.

billie

And they have to starve themselves too ....?

Vanilla,

Thank you for your support and kind words. I am generally known for my unfailing, albeit innocent, ability to upset people :-[

Returning to the topic of husbands’ (some) expectations. I recall “a lifetime ago” being promised to be covered in diamonds. Wanting to keep the romantic moment going, I encouraged more - only to reveal this would show the world the measure of his success. I didn’t marry him; but I learnt a valuable lesson. If my husband can be encouraged to “drop off his twig”, I will be out there looking for a wealthy widower with a very bad cough ...

More seriously.

Statistics need to be broken down much further into professions and industries, etc; also an indepth study done of what women actually want for themselves, including partners. We don’t want women to feel guilty that they aren’t striving for the top eschelons in corporate business. It was bad enough when women first entered the workplace with the guilt of being working-mums.

Some industries may not attract women and, therefore, are male dominated; this would skew figures as to male/female ratios of advancement. I suspect the mining industry is such; also pilots of commercial airlines. Albeit, this area is not barred from women. A few years ago great publicity heralded the first woman pilot of one of the biggest companies. Predictably this was followed by an irate “letter to the editor” from an outraged male, stating he would never fly with a woman pilot ... (something about) ... hysteria ... and PMT. Forget terrorists, think ovaries.

Romany,

I agree with your about the Church... After all ... Adam’s excuse, ...”The woman made me do it ...”

And throughout social history there is a fear of women’s menses. At some level, I believe, this accords with the idea of women in the board-room.

Depsis,

“According to the census data, males make up about 2/3rds of those holding postgraduate degrees in the broad field of "Management & Commerce”

1/6th difference - women are catching up.

cont ..

Women’s clothing is much more expensive than men’s - compare the same brand and exactly same style of jumper for a woman and a man - a massive price difference. Exploitation?

Struggling with children can occur when career-women are full-time or part-time. It has nothing to do with taking on more than one can handle. It appears - and I might be wrong - that men on average leave the organisation of babies and tots to their wives. Does that 33% of men include care of very young children.

Yabby,

Women, indeed, have entrepreneurial  flair. They can turn an old idea on its head and create something new. They also introduce completely novel concepts, particularly in meeting societal needs. However, as Bronwyn has shown, women interact differently with others, and many prefer smaller businesses, (often more apparent than real), for example, a vocational magazine run by two women, with international recognition of being top ranking in the world, and with world-wide readership. Then we have such businesswomen as Therese Rein.

Col Rouge

We have already clashed about corporate management on another OLO.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1532

“ Being a "woman of childbearing age and inclination", is not a commercially valuable attribute when considering her for a significant management role.”

A ludicrous statement, completely outdated, should not even factor in. Women seeking significant management status have already made the necesssary decisions.

Apart from the falacy of your argument, when male executives go on long-service leave, it is hardly even noticed - no businesses collapse, nor indeed departments.

Re: Margaret Thatcher. It is heard that English male cabinet ministers often have a psycho-sexual “nanny complex” or prediliction for women’s undies; which sometimes hits the headlines.

“... an army run by women”

You are dating yourself .

“ ... PMT is setting in.”

It was YOU who wrote that irate “letter to the editor” about female pilots! We have women fighter pilots, even space pilots.

“The arrogance of feminism is to presume ... we presently are”

The immediate above, obviously the result of incandescent rage, dear Col Rouge, is completely incomprehensible.

Oh Danielle nice to see I caught your attention, between running the kids to and from school, getting your hair done and making a nice meal for the man in your life.

“We have already clashed about corporate management on another OLO.”

Nice of you to remember.

Yes, you seemed to be getting your knickers in a twist there too.

All the anecdotal evidence in the world does not substitute for analytical research and since all you said was your own “anecdotal experience”, I see no point in giving it the more credit by challenging it.

“A ludicrous statement, completely outdated, should not even factor in.”

Well I think otherwise and am entitled to express my views, regardless of your assertions on allowable factors.

“ Women seeking significant management status have already made the necesssary decisions.”

Yes, that may be so but have the men, who are considering employing them, made the necessary decisions too?

“no businesses collapse, nor indeed departments.”

However, you fail to quantify how much organizational disruption it causes, unless the role the woman plays is sole incidental to what really matters (as with all HR roles).

“It is heard that English male cabinet ministers often have a psycho-sexual “nanny complex” or prediliction for women’s undies”

I do recall an Australian Labor cabinet minister being up on charges for having a “predilection” for children.
Maybe you could argue that was a result of Keating’s style of leadership.

“It was YOU who wrote that irate “letter to the editor” about female pilots!”
It was not but when should the truth ever get in the way of your rant.

“The immediate above, obviously the result of incandescent rage”

Hardly, you seem to be the one who is seething and salivating, for myself, I am enjoying a warm evening with a cold beer and a belly laugh at your expense.

“dear Col Rouge, is completely incomprehensible.”

Comprehension is in the eye of the beholder and sometimes constrained by the limited ability of the same beholder.

Have a nice time, I look forward to your response, more fun and frolics.