Romany, I’ve never tried the helicopter to cure anyone’s menstrual cramps, so
it seems that not all men do. Given that women don’t view those morning glories with
the same pride, clearly there are differences between the genders that are biologically
based, which was my point. :)

Bronwyn, wether my comments are seen as patronizing or arrogant, really does not
matter. That is an emotional response as to how things are said, not a factual analysis
of what was said. Big difference

You might not want to play by the laws of the jungle, but if you are a CEO, your
company is in the marketplace and others are playing by those laws, then your company will most likely be affected. If the profits of your company decrease
due to your philosophical issues, then clearly shareholders have the right to
question if you are up to your job or not.

*Are they inventing new rules? Or just new ways to bend the old rules?*

They are inventing new ways to play games, which at present are not illegal and
were not thought of before. It seems like new rules need to be invented, to deal
with them.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Pricing-out-predators-CTRSZ?OpenDocument

When people go to work for hedge funds each morning, they don’t carry a lot
of philosophical baggage with them. They are there to make money, pure and
simple. Strategic thinking is what it is all about.

The bloke who spent 20 years building up ABC childcare centres, has found out
the hard way, that the laws of the jungle are today’s reality. You cannot close
your eyes and wish reality to go away, it won’t. That is the bottom line.

That is what separating emotion from reason is all about and its critical.

*Women sure as hell wouldn't have led us up the garden path to the quagmire of Iraq.*

So why did tens of millions of them vote for George Bush, when Karl Rove
pushed their emotional buttons about Osama under their beds? Without
the women’s vote, George would not be there! I say that as an Obama supporter.

Bronwyn “Women sure as hell wouldn’t have led us up the garden path to the quagmire of Iraq.”

And

““There’s a blindness that comes with arrogance.”

Your assertion to what “women” might have done in Iraq sounds pretty “arrogant” to me, Need a white stick?

“It’s time for a new paradigm and if you can’t see it at least don’t stand in the way of those who can.”

As far as women who have “strut the world stage” in the past century, Margaret Thatcher is the stand-out example of someone for all you ladies to aspire to as an example of the “female paradigm”

Remember, she is the one who sent the combined British Forces into the Falklands in the name of democracy and, if she were in power at the time, would have done the same as Blair in going into Iraq.
However, you possibly consider to exclude her as a poor example for her failure to tow the feminist line, after all she did say

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib.”

but any such exclusion would be criticised by me as "Cherry picking"

Whitty “'m sooo sick of hearing about this wonderful world women would have created with no wars.”

Yes, it’s a bit like “The meek will inherit the earth, if thats OK with everyone else”

Bronwyn “the course we are on now is completely unsustainable.”

Before making that claim, I would expect you to define what is “sustainable”, relative to any given population and qualifying whether you are talking about nation or world population (it makes a big difference to who you tell to fix the problem).

“Perhaps if you spent more time reading…”

Seem a little hypocritical, when followed with the statement

“I’ve got no time for your arrogant “We know best” attitude”

Fractelle
If your asking me if I believe that women should have the vote, then I believe that women should have the vote.

But I’m not a feminist, and I don’t vote for someone based on their gender.

If you are trying to say that I am a misogynist, then you can look through my posts, and find where I have said one negative word about women. A feminist has done that already, and couldn’t find anything, but still calls me a misogynist.

So much for the "ism" of feminism.

Col Rouge,

A reference from a pal is not necessarily a reference at all. Apart from the palship of close friendships, the employed may have been put into the position of recommending this person to his boss.

Have often are these scenarios played out

Scenario 1.

Pal 1. X is resigning ... dead ... had a nervous breakdown ... We’re advertising ...

Pal 2. (interrupting) I could do his job with my hands tied behind my back. You know
my experience and efficiency (subtext: you haven’t seen me in action, but I’ve
told you often enough). Put in a good word for me. Be a good mate ...

Scenario 2

My son, your godson, is looking for a job in your neck of the woods. I hear there’s an opening just up his street. I know you would keep a good eye on
him ...

I would have thought that selecting employees was rather more sophisticated today. Not only qualifications and prior experience, but also the interview process itself, by judicious questioning should determine just how familiar, capable, with various “procedures” the candidate is - AND not the least the interviewee’s own observations. By also presenting the candidate with hypothetical or past problems, thus a measure of how quickly the candidate can think on their feet, indeed, work under pressure (of an interview). Surely this would be some gauge of experience.

This assumes, of course, that the interviewer, himself, is competent and knows what he is doing.

Anyhow, we both agree:

“None of that makes any difference to the fact, men and women are all individuals, some talented and others less so”

Thus, women and men should both be assessed equally for an executive placement. Gender shouldn’t enter into it.

cont ...

Desipsis,

“I have no problem with women making up the majority of business leaders if they are in fact better at it than men, however I don't see much evidence that they are.”

A specious argument. When women are excluded already for consideration at executive level, there is hardly likely to be collective evidence of their business accumen.

Yabby

What exactly is this “law of the jungle”. Is this meant to deter or frighten women? "The law of the jungle" couldn’t be more forocious or savage than a mother protecting her young. Any person who has been involved with animals can confirm this; and it translates well into humanity itself.

To the gentle OLO readers out there, please forgive me for what I am about to do...

HRS

I did not ask you your opinion on women voting, nor did I query how you vote.

Please, a little more focus.

My question to you was and remains:

Do you object to women as politicians?

Now either you have no problem to female pollies, if so, you could easily answer, "No"

Or

You do object, so you would then answer "yes"

It is not a problem for me if you object to female politicians. You are not alone, in fact there are other men who object to women's participation in politics, business and other areas of power in our society. Yabby argues all the time that women as less capable than men in these fields.

However, that you appear to be incapable of giving a straight forward answer to a very straight forward question is very revealing about you.

For some reason, you don't wish to be called a misogynist. You are allowed to express your true beliefs here. I don't like religious fundamentalists, I don't have a problem with moderate religious, but the fundy's are very worrisome.

Clearly, you find feminism worrisome too. That's fine. I just wish for some straight forward honesty on your part.

Now, please, a simple straight forward answer.

Do you object to women politicians?